Dear Dr.

Mouras,
Despite his valid publications involving endocrinology, sexuality, and epigenetically-induced
differentiation in model organisms, James V. Kohl overextends his expertise in trying to overthrow
established evolutionary theory. is earlier publications cover topics such as behavioral effects of
hormones, pheromones, and food odors !Kohl, "##$%&'"&( Kohl et al., &''"). owever, in &'"*, he
submitted a manuscript in which he attempted to lin+ his previous wor+ in behavior and its
development to larger, overarching, evolutionary concepts. ,his is a criticism of both his published
wor+s and external discussions in which he attempts to clarify his position.
-n this latest paper, after what is essentially a reiteration of his &'"& publication, a description of
behavioral modification by food odors and pheromones, the claim is made that evolution is exclusively
driven by genetically-predisposed, nutrient-dependent, and pheromone-controlled behavior and sexual
selection. .n the molecular level, he references only epigenetic processes !although he does not
describe them in detail), which affect when genes are transcribed, reversible alterations li+e genome
methylation, silencing, control of splicing, chromatin remodeling, etc. ,here is no mention at all of any
biochemical pathways or en/ymes that are involved in 0nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled0
nucleotide or amino acid substitutions, so how genomic changes !changes in the D12 se3uence) in his
model are entirely unexplained. owever, Kohl heavily implies without directly stating that alternative
splicing !the only mechanism he does specifically mention) is responsible for genetic diversity. ,his is,
of course, ridiculous, because splicing does not have the capability to ma+e changes to the genome
itself. e explicitly denies the contribution of mutations to genotypic and phenotypic variety, claiming
that 0biophysical constraints0 prevent 0constraint-brea+ing mutations0 from being involved in evolution
entirely !4orum comment, January &'"5). Mutations are, according to him, only involved in disease
and cannot result in adaptive traits, despite the massive amount of evidence contrary to that. ,he
0biophysical constraints0 which supposedly prevent mutations from contributing to evolution are never
discussed by Kohl in any further detail. ,he phrases 0biophysical constraints0 and 0constraint-brea+ing
mutations0 come from Masatoshi 1ei0s boo+ Mutation-Driven Evolution, in which 1ei posits that
mutations play a larger role than natural selection in the process of evolution. 6ased on the context in
which Kohl discusses these constraints, it seems as if he believes 1ei is saying that mutations brea+
some physical law and that they should not be allowed to occur. ,he true context is very clear when
reading the passage in 1ei0s boo+ where the constraints are first mentioned. 1ei describes constraints
on gene se3uences in regard to how changes to the se3uence would affect the function of the protein.
-n addition, Kohl shows a blatant disregard for established nomenclature. 4or example, he routinely
attempts to redefine 0natural selection.0 7harles Darwin defined it on page $" of On the Origin of
Species as the 0principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved0. Kohl often defines it as
selection by the organism for nutrients !4orum comment, 2ugust &'"*) instead of the typical selection
by the environment !biotic or abiotic) for advantageous phenotypes. 2nother term coined by Darwin,
0conditions of life0, is fre3uently described by Kohl as 0nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled0
!4orum comment, June &'"*). 8eeing as the conditions of life are the external circumstances to which
an organism must be adapted, his redefinition ma+es absolutely no sense. ,he descriptors 0nutrient-
dependent and pheromone-controlled0 are not at all applicable to the environment.
9ast but not least, Kohl shows significant comprehension issues within his own paper and in external
discussions of references he believes support his model. 2n extremely telling exchange can be seen in
the comment section of an article on Science0s news website between Kohl and 0:obert 8mith0 !2rticle
comment, .ctober &'"*). .ne of the foremost misinterpretations is of 7helo et al.0s !&'"*) examination
of allele fixation probability. Kohl cites it as though it is evidence that mutations are never fixed in the
genome, but the results indicate no such conclusion. -n the 0-nsects0 subsection of 02n epigenetic
continuum...0 within his &'"* paper, he briefly mentions the well +nown peppered moth example of
evolution by selective predation. e denies that predation was the driving force, followed by a
seemingly irrelevant statement and citation concerning the moths0 migration. -n external discussion,
Kohl has attributed the melanism to a change in the moths0 diet brought on by the pollution, despite the
fact that this hypothesis has been contradicted by experimental and statistical evidence stemming from
three separate studies !;ra+ash, &''$). -n the following 0Mammals0 subsection, he begins by stating that
mutations theory does not address pleiotropy or epistasis. ,his is patently false and the citation he uses
here says nothing about either of those processes or their relation to mutations. Kohl then refers to an
allele change that occurred in a population in 7hina *',''' years ago as 0probably ... nutrient-
dependent0 without ma+ing reference to what nutrient caused the change or how. ,his is followed by
the statement 0the effect < is due to an epigenetic effect of nutrients on hormones responsible for the
twea+ing of immense gene networ+s0. 2llele changes are not epigenetic and - +now of no mechanism
that ma+es gene se3uence changes prompted by epigenetic alterations. 2 common discussion topic for
Kohl outside of his published wor+s is :ichard 9ens+i0s E. coli long-term evolution experiment !&''=).
.n one particular blog, >ducate ,ruth, Kohl showed a series of fundamental misunderstandings about
the experiment while trying to deny that mutation and natural selection were involved. e attempted to
argue that a de novo olfactory receptor gene was created that allowed citrate transport. -n reality, a
mutation occurred that placed an existing promoter active under oxic conditions next to the citrate
transporter gene. 2nother multitude of misconceptions and misunderstandings can be seen in his
comments on Dr. ;? Myers0 blog, ;haryngula !January &'"5). 4or example, in comment @"&A, Kohl
says that proteasomes mediate protein folding. ;roteasomes do no such thing. ,hey are actually
structures whose function is to brea+ down proteins. -n that same post, he reiterates his lac+ of
+nowledge of natural selection by as+ing another commentor to 0indicate how a beneficial mutation
somehow +new it would be beneficial0.
2ll things considered, by showing such fundamental misunderstandings about the processes he
attempts to refute, Kohl does himself a huge disservice.
:eferences
6lount, ?. D., 6orland, 7. ?., B 9ens+i, :. >. !&''=). -naugural 2rticleC istorical 7ontingency 2nd
,he >volution .f 2 Key -nnovation -n 2n >xperimental ;opulation .f >scherichia 7oli. Proceedings
of the National Acadey of Sciences, !"#!&*), D=##-D#'$.
7helo, -. M., 1Edli, J., Fordo, -., B ,eotGnio, . !&'"*). 2n experimental test on the probability of
extinction of new genetic variants. Nature $ounications, 5
Darwin, 7harles !"=A#). On the Origin of Species !" ed.). p. $"
Kohl, J. V. !"##$) Mammalian olfactory-genetic-neuronal-hormonal-behavioral reciprocity and human
sexuality. 2ssociation for 7hemoreception 8ciences, 8arasota, 49, 2pr "D-&".
Kohl, J. V. !&'"&). uman pheromones and food odorsC >pigenetic influences on the socioaffective
nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience % Psychology, &, "D**=.
Kohl, J. V. !&'"*) 1utrient-dependent%pheromone-controlled adaptive evolutionC a model.
Socioaffective Neuroscience % Psychology &'"*, *C &'AA*
Kohl, J. V. !&'"*, June &#). >volutionary ;sychology H.nline forum commentI. :etrieved from
httpsC%%groups.yahoo.com%neo%groups%evolutionary-psychology%conversations%topics%"A'$5=
Kohl, J. V. !&'"*, 2ugust &A). >volutionary ;sychology H.nline forum commentI. :etrieved from
httpsC%%groups.yahoo.com%neo%groups%evolutionary-psychology%conversations%topics%"A"DD&
Kohl, J. V. !&'"*, .ctober) H7omment to articleC Science8hotC ow the Jhale 6ecame the JhaleI
:etrieved from httpC%%news.sciencemag.org%biology%&'"*%""%scienceshot-how-whale-became-whale
Kohl, J. V. !&'"*, 1ovember *') H7omment to blogC Dr. :ichard 9ens+i0s KLnicornsMI :etrieved from
httpC%%www.educatetruth.com%opinion%dr-richard-lens+is-unicorns%
Kohl, J. V. !&'"5, January 5). 2 third of 2mericans don0t believe in evolution H.nline forum
commentI. :etrieved from httpC%%phys.org%news%&'"5-'"-americans-dont-evolution.html
Kohl, J. V. !&'"5, January D). H7omment to blogpostC .ne cran+ dies, another rises to ta+e his placeI.
Pharyngula. :etrieved from httpC%%freethoughtblogs.com%pharyngula%&'"5%'"%'$%one-cran+-dies-
another-rises-to-ta+e-his-place%comment-page-"%
Kohl JV, 2t/mueller M, 4in+ 6, B Frammer K !&''") uman ;heromonesC -ntegrating
1euroendocrinology and >thology. Neuroendocrinology 'ettersC &&!A) *'#-*&".
1ei, M. !&'"*) Mutation-Driven Evolution. :etrieved from boo+s.google.com
;ra+ash, M. !&''$). Encyclopaedia of gene evolution. 1ew DelhiC Discovery ;ub. ouse.