Dear Fran,

I appreciate you want specific details and proofs supporting “the molecular model of translation of emotions into mutations, and an explanation of the subsequent spread of those identical mutations to all of the germ cells.” While papers 1-5 certainly provide many details, along with copious references, (including references supporting the prediction of inheritable stress induced mutations of noncoding DNA,) I’m the first to admit these papers don’t provide the kind of detailed molecular and genetic evidence you (and other life scientists) would rightly expect.

This of course doesn’t mean the theory is flawed. It simply reflects the fact that theory precedes observation, often by many years. For example, although Darwin and Wallace first put forward their theories of natural selection in 1859, it wasn’t until the 1950s that the molecular mechanisms of natural selection, (ie, point mutations, DNA, RNA, proteins, polypeptides, genes, etc.) were fully understood and accepted. Similarly, although Gregor Mendel published his theory of inheritance in 1865, it took another fifty years to identify and articulate the molecular-genetic mechanisms of inheritance.

While teem theory appears to explain a raft of diverse biological phenomena, from instincts and emotions to the Cambrian explosion and the capricious permutations of the fossil record, verification, (or rejection) of the theory will only come gradually, from experimenters, clinicians and hands on researchers such as yourself.

This won’t be an easy task. Because the teemosis evolutionary system mediates a complex biological interaction between the environment and the genome, it is inordinately complex, and will be difficult to extrapolate from the parallel Mendelian inheritance system. Because of this, in my book, ‘The Second Evolution’ I predict that it will take geneticists and molecular biologists at least ten years to unravel the myriad genetic infrastructure of teemosis and understand all its genetic elements. I also think it will take at least two decades to fully decipher the emotional language contained in noncoding nucleotides of DNA.

So while I appreciate you would like to see concrete proofs provided for all the elements of teem theory (just as I would), I’m afraid these may take some time. In the meantime, teem theory provides a guide - a map that experimenters, clinicians and researchers can use to help verify, amend or refute the theory.

Your second point – that genetic drift and sexual selection are evolutionary processes – so teemosis can’t be a ‘second’ evolutionary process, also makes a good point and requires a response.

While some text books argue that drift and sexual selection are evolutionary processes, I take a different view, based on the fact that the real evolutionary engine of natural selection is the mutational process. I suggest that because genetic drift and sexual selection both rely on random mutations of protein-coding genes to effect inheritable modifications of physical traits, they are both examples of natural selection. All they really do is determine which trait gets selected. The actual ‘evolution’ is achieved by the mutational process.

So while natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift all rely on the same evolutionary process (random mutations of protein-coding genes), teemosis uses non-random mutations of non-protein-coding nucleotides to achieve a different (non-physical) kind of evolution.

This is not just semantics. Teemosis is unique as an evolutionary process in as much as it doesn’t moderate the evolution of physical traits as all the natural selection processes do. It only moderates the inheritance of emotional traits.

Finally, you write, “I do not agree that macroevolution requires a different evolutionary force from microevolution, and feel there is sufficient evidence to show that most macroevolutionary change has occurred gradually..”

Despite being a widely held opinion, especially among older biologists, I suggest this idea is not actually supported by current scientific data. In fact, the hard evidence of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that for the first 3.2 billion years of life on earth, NS didn’t produce anything even remotely resembling biological complexity or diversity (macroevolution,) a scenario that is completely at odds with Darwin’s gradualistic, incremental model of evolution.

Macroevolution only became a feature of evolution about 543 million years ago, and dates precisely to the emergence of the teemosis evolutionary process.

Thanks again for your very interesting and valuable feedback.

Kind regards

Good site. [Fran] Bonier says there’s evidence that macroevolutionary change occurs gradually, a fairly presumptuous statement even for a student. Like most biofolk, she assumes macroevolution isthe result of selection because that’s the only kind of evolution her text books talk about, As someone whos burnt the midnight oil trying to crunch the kind of numbers of random mutations you need  to produce anything vaguely complex, the idea that there’s some nonrandom machinery producing complexity makes a whole lot of sense. What we need is a mathematically realistic explanation for macroevolution   something that doesn’t rely on the mega odds lottery of random genes. If this theory of yours can do that and it looks like maybe it can that’s a fairly important step.

Jeff Garcia

I have read the papers that touch on my own field of genetics and find the material very interesting. Though I cannot remark on aspects that are outside my area of competence, your case for a second genetic code in eukaryotic DNA is strongly argued and entirely plausible. A very convincing hypothesis indeed. It has given me much to think of. 

cordially,
Werner Meyer

Danny,

 DV: Reply (1)

This model explains why human nature can provide humans with a universal preference for ‘park-like surroundings’ but it can't precisely name what trees or shrubs make up that preference. This is because emotions can’t proscribe specific concrete information. A human nature teem can provide men with an innate preference for women 'shorter than myself' (because ‘relative height’ can be encoded emotionally) but it can’t provide an innate preference for a specific height. It can’t encode a preference for a female 5’ 7” tall for instance. The corollary of all this is that all the disparate elements that make up human nature are comprised of emotions. If information can’t be encoded into emotion, it can’t form part of human nature. There appears to be no exceptions to this rule.

Regards
Danny

Steve Rosenberg (2)

DV: Reply (2)