Second Evolution-feedback1

THE SECOND EVOLUTION
BY DANNY VENDRAMINI

FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION

PAGE 1 (OF 4)

To protect correspondents from spam, no email addresses will be included.

Professor G. A. Parker Population and Evolutionary Biology Research Group, University of Liverpool	Dear Mr Vendramini How very fascinating! I've been worried for years about 'junk' DNA and its evolution. I guess first you need good evidence, and second, some plausible mechanism for how 'teems' evolve needs working out - it poses some probelms. All best wishes, Geoff Parker
DV: Reply	Dear Professor Parker, Thanks for your response to teem theory. It's much appreciated. Because of the limited space provided by scientific journals, I wasn't able to include in the MH paper all the proofs for teem theory that I've accumulated over six years of research. The full case, supported by about 800 references can only be made in the 100,000 word book I'm writing, (The Second Evolution) which I hope will answer all your questions. Danny
Professor James Shapiro, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. University of Chicago	Danny, Thanks for your email and the link to the web site. I prefer to think that repetitive and other non-coding DNA affects all the characters of cells and organisms, not just emotive and social phenotypes. However, your suggestion is provocative, and your paper has made me aware of some literature that I did not know. I wish you good fortune in pursuing your ideas. Best wishes, Jim Shapiro
DV: Reply	Dear Jim, Thanks for your positive response and encouragement which is greatly appreciated. Your feedback is invaluable. I agree completely that ncDNA affects more than just emotive and behavioural phenotypes. In Paper 5, 'The teem theory of nonMendelian inheritance', (on the web site) I argue that because innate behaviour and instincts invariably comprise both physical and emotional components, most teems (despite not coding for proteins) paradoxically regulate the expression of some coding genes. For instance, when a hostility teem is activated, (by transduced sensory stimuli or internal thoughts) in addition to releasing various emotions (anger, annoyance, resentment, fury etc.) the teem also triggers the expression of neurotransmitters and hormones that cause palpitations, sweating, pupil dilation, and other physical effects. I also agree that teem theory is 'provocative,' which is a two edged sword. While being provocative can stimulate constructive debate, it can also arouse entrenched scientific conservatism that can hinder acceptance for decades. For me though, of more importance is whether the theory is correct or not. Or at least scientifically plausible. My problem is that most of my research on teem theory hasn't been in genetics. It's been in evolutionary biology, palaeontology, psychology, behavioural ecology, and anthropology. Extending teem theory to include a new theory of eukaryotic behavioural inheritance ('the divided DNA hypotheses'), while a crucial part of the 'unified theory,' has drawn me into areas of molecular biology and genetics I have only a basic understanding of. Is there a fundamental flaw in my arguments, have I overlooked or misinterpreted some vital piece of genetic evidence, are my conclusions correct? These are questions I need to answer before I attempt to have 'The Second evolution' published. That's why having the theory critiqued by such a distinguished authority on ncDNA as yourself is so important. And appreciated. Best wishes Danny
Jessie White	Re phenotypic plasticity- I found your web site and paper illuminating. The case for 'Teems' controlling developmental plasticity appears sound although one would like to see more substantive support for such a hypothesis. That's not meant to be a negative. Your challenging ideas have given me much food for thought. We need more ideas like this. Thank you and best wishes. Jessie
DV: Reply	Dear Jessie, Thanks for your kinds words. In the book I'm writing on teems, ('The Second evolution') I expand on the teem theory of phenotypic plasticity in more detail as I think this is an important if overlooked field of behavioral genetics. Danny
Professor David Featherstone, Department of Biological Sciences. University of Illinois at Chicago	Hi Danny, Teem theory is an interesting idea -- reminds me a bit of Scientology. I think your scientific goal should be to determine the molecular mechanism(s) by which trauma can cause changes in DNA sequence (or otherwise isolate the heritable 'thing' left by trauma). For ideas on how this could be done, you might want to look at the early studies (1930s-1950s) of inheritance, which eventually figured out that DNA was the significant molecule of heritability (many people favored protein, and then subsequent studies (1950s onward) that figured out which sorts of sequences in particular led to heritable traits. I think TEEM theory is all very scientifically addressable, and can rely on standard genetic techniques. The problem with getting funding for this sort of thing is that you first need evidence that trauma is in fact heritable. I am not sure how much background in Genetics you have, but such knowledge is certainly relevant and you might find more of it useful in your pursuit of teems. If you're interested in challenging independent study, I can recommend these texts: 'Genes' (latest edition) by Lewin and 'Introduction to Genetic Analysis' by Griffiths et al. It's clear that you are already familiar with academic style and study, so please don't be insulted by my suggesting these books -- it's just that I missed any solid discussion of the molecular basis of teems in your writings, and since such a basis will be required for greater recognition and practical use of your theory, I thought/hope you might find the pointer helpful. All the best, Dave
DV: Reply	Dear Dave, Many thanks for your constructive feedback and advice. It's certainly much appreciated. While I know your suggestion to apply for funding to the Church of Scientology is based on well intentioned pragmatism, I wouldn't feel happy being funded by a religious organization. Actually, funding for laboratory research and experimentation to verify the ncDNA hypothesis is not a priority for me. Verification or rejection of the theory can only come from geneticists like yourself who have a far deeper understanding of molecular biology than me. Hopefully the motivation will come from the belief that our current genetic paradigms, (especially in relation to the evolution of innate behaviour, the role of the environment in shaping genomes, and the elusive evolutionary function of noncoding DNA) are inadequate. My priorities are to publish a book on 'The Second Evolution' to provide a forum where this radical but scientifically plausible new unified theory of biology can be debated. But before I publish the book, I need to be as sure as possible that there's no major mistakes in the genetic model. That's why your feedback is so important and so appreciated. Best wishes Danny
Professor Kirk Winemiller Texas A&M University	Thanks for your message and information. Your theory is very novel and interesting. I have shared the information with interested colleagues. Best regards, Kirk
J. Dayal Purohit	Dear Sir, Your proposal that two evolutionary mechanisms administrate evolution is so very simple but equally very profound. It brought to mind Thomas Huxley’s remark when he was reading Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, “How incredibly stupid not to have thought of that myself.” The clues were there for all of us to see - nature always looks for the simplest and easiest solution. salutations,
DV: Reply	Thanks for your gracious comments. A second evolutionary process, (to regulate behaviour) was inevitable because the existing natural selection system couldn’t create instincts (because instincts contain environmental information that would contaminate the germline), and that would constitute 'Lamarckian inheritance', which is maladaptive. The only solution was to come up with a completely new type of evolutionary process.
Jonathan Blythe Reply: DV	Hello Danny Vendramini, I looked over your website very briefly, and I think that you have some interesting hypotheses on evolution. I am an ecologist, so much of this material is outside of my specialty. I suspect, though, that it will be a very long time before the science could address some of these hypotheses. Of course there is no harm in developing new theory, but may I suggest that proposing a second theory of evolution is unnecessary. Social aspects of evolution are treated in a multi-level selection framework. I think of evolution as acting continuously across many scales. I just wanted to point out that a single dichotomy seems unnecessary. Thank you Jonathan Dear Jonathan, Thanks for your feedback. It's much appreciated. kind regards, Danny
Robert Johnson DV: Reply	My professor told me to check out your web site because my PhD thesis is on avian speciation. Can’t comment on most of your ideas though they make sense but your ideas on sexual selection sure hit a cord. Lots of avian speciation events I’ve looked at don’t square with Mayr and Dobzhansky, allopatry and postmating reproductive isolation just don’t explain how novel features arise and founder effect hasn’t got anything worthwhile to say about why speciation phenomena is so arbitrary. Emotions and emotional attraction never came into it. The theory of Teems identifies emotion, which shows how birds in conspecific flocks can abruptly establish isolated breeding populations. I take your point that emotional preferences are arbritary, so that all makes sense. Congratulations, I'll look forward to reading the book when it's finished. Robert Johnson Thanks for your comments. It's understandable that 'emotional attraction' was overlooked as a factor in speciation by Mayr, Dobzhansky and others because emotions for most of the last century were not considered to be scientifically quantifiable or valid. Too wishy-washy. But when you think about it, most humans have very strong feelings about who they fall in love with, marry and have children with. I know a man who has only ever dated blondes. In a sense, he's practising sexual selection. These decisions are all informed by powerful emotions. Why should it be any different with nonhuman animals. If a female bird is suddenly smitten by a male with say, distinctive yellow feathers or crop, it makes sense she will choose males displaying similar plumage in preference to other males. Teem theory simply explains how this emotional preference is genetically archived in her DNA. Good luck with your thesis.
Professor Georg Striedter UC Irvine.	Hi Congratulations on your paper. I'm sure it is not easy to get your ideas to be accepted broadly, but persistence does pay off. Anyway, I think you might be interested in recent work (unfortunately I do not have references at my fingertips; Luis Villareal at UC Irvine recently wrote a book where he dicusses those ideas) suggesting that much of the "junk" in vertebrate genomes is due to viruses "invading" other genes. Best wishes, Georg
DV: Reply	Thanks for your comments. And thanks too for pointing out Luis Villarreal's interesting work on virus evolution and noncoding DNA. I wasn't familiar with it. In effect, the supply of 'junk DNA' created by rapidly mutating viruses can be used by natural selection to create new protein-coding genes, or it can be used by the teemosis process to code for new emotions, innate behaviours and personality traits. Regards Danny
Professor Noam Chomsky MIT	Thanks very much for sending. So overwhelmed with mail and other obligations that I have to put aside manuscripts, but will try to get to it. Sounds intriguing -- but I wouldn't have the technical competence to comment seriously. Noam Chomsky
DV: Reply	Dear Professor Chomsky, Thanks for your prompt and generous response. I'm delighted to receive your email. While teem theory may seem outside your field, because it appears to explain how new innate behaviours, emotions and instincts are encoded into DNA and inherited, it lends itself to a new theory of communications and language - with is very much your field. Over thirty years ago, you speculated that not only was the human capacity for language partially innate, but that its acquisition wasn't regulated by natural selection, but by some as yet undiscovered biological process. Your confidence that another process existed was an important encouragement to me when I began my work on the evolution of innate behaviour. If teem theory is correct, (and it certainly seems to explain how nonverbal communication, interspecies communication, subliminal perception and language acquisition is created and inherited), then it confirms your theory that innate linguistic elements are created and inherited by a nonmutational process.
Professor Roger D. Masters (1) Research Professor of Government & Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor Emeritus President, Foundation for Neuroscience & Society	A question: Do you consider the evolution of nonverbal displays of emotion (which are species typical in humans -- and actually similar in many non-human primates, but shaped to some degree by culture and language?) Why is traditional evolutionary theory incapable of accounting for the motor coordinations of smiling when you are happy and crying when sad? rdm
DV: Reply	Dear Professor Masters, Thanks for your interest in my work and for your intriguing questions. If I read your first question correctly - are nonverbal displays of emotion shaped to some degree by culture and language - teem theory asserts that displays of emotions (smiles, grimaces, gestures etc.) are encoded into noncoding strings of our DNA as 'teems'. Each teem not only contains the primary emotions, but additionally, the 'trigger emotions' that activate the teem. For example, humans have a number of 'spider teems.' Each spider teem includes the primary response emotions - (fear, dread, shock, concern, etc) plus a suite of unique emotions that code for, (or describe) the spider by its particular shape, size, colour and movement. In other words, a spider can be translated (transduced) into a set of emotions that distinguish it from a tiger, a bunch of flowers or a baby. This transduced 'emotional portrait' is highly adaptive because it allows a person who has never seen a spider before to recognise it instantly by the unique emotions it transduces. These transduced emotions in turn trigger the primary spider emotions - fear, horror, anxiety, etc. Significantly, both the primary teemic emotions and the trigger emotions can be altered by learning. Things like habituation, anxiety, repression and education can modify the teemic emotions. In addition, new triggers can be associated with the teem, or errors in transduction can affect it. For example, a furry ball of string may transduce into emotions that resemble a spider which can incorrectly trigger a spider teem. Because the only thing a teem contains is emotions, it can't stipulate a complex or precise physical response. This ensures a degree of latitude in relation to the expression of teems which appears to be adaptive. The physical response is influenced by personality, social conditions, learning, repression, (ie. cerebral control), etc. Typically though, (in the case of the spider teem), the fear emotions will generally induce physical movement away from the spider. Re motor coordination of smiling when you are happy and crying when sad, teem theory argues that over the eons, our ancestors have encoded a large number of happy and sad teems, each with its own precise emotions. These teems extend from mild contentment to euphoria and from slight despondence to abject grief. The emotions encoded in these teems affect our bodies in a variety of imprecise ways, particularly in relation to muscle tension, galvanic skin resistance, heart beat and perspiration rate. Again, human personality ensures that each human expresses the same teem differently. Cultural restraints, over time, can significantly impact on expression, produces slight 'national differences' in societies. I hope this answers your questions.
Professor Roger Masters (2)	My reaction: your approach makes very good sense because the ability of Homo sapiens to adapt to widely different environments (obviously a key feature of the species) will be greatly enhanced through the ability to shape somewhat the triggers of emotional responses in the manner you describe. Moreover, such differences would then reinforce ingroup/outgroup discrimination and facilitate the extension of "group selected" limitations on altruistic behaviors to non-kin. That matters since the expansion of viable "group" size for a political unit from the hunter gatherer band (16-20) to the national-state (16 to 200 million people) is not a trivial detail in human evolution and cultural history. good luck.

If you want to alter or delete your posting, just send me an email.

Home