Well, I promised that I'd open Jim Kohl's posts to ensure I did not miss
his answer to my simple question, so I guess I should respond to this
one.

I am not aware of this "biological fact" to which you refer about some
sort of in utero "conditioning via olfactory/pheronmonal cues associated
with visual and auditory input." In fact, I cannot even conceive of
such an in utero mechanism. Moreover, I see here that you will continue
to litter your answers with unrelated subjects and personal vitriol.

There. I have opened one more post from Jim Kohl and found it to be the
same gibberish. I will now return to not opening posts from him. One
last message to Jim Kohl: you are now free to continue to personally
defame me in your posts because I won't even know if you do that.
Others will probably tire of that, though, but then they'll have to make
their own judgment about your character and knowledge. I've made my
judgment. You're not worth listening to.

--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, JVKohl <jvkohl@...>
wrote:
>
> I am certain I have mentioned before to Sonny and others that the only
> explanation for milk letdown release is due to the biological fact
that
> the response is conditioned to occur via olfactory /pheromonal cues
> associated with visual and auditory input.
>
> Those who would rather believe there is some /*direct*/ connection
from
> visual and auditory pathways to the hypothalamus and pituitary that
> somehow allow neurons to release oxytocin and induce the mammary
glands
> to release milk, are welcome to believe ridiculous misrepresentations
of
> biologically based cause and effect that exclude olfactory/pheromonal
> input. But you then set yourself up to believe in what Sonny has said
> about domain-specific modules and what he is trying to tell you about
> Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance.
>
> People, like Sonny, who do not understand the basic principles of
> biology and levels of biological organization responsible for cause
and
> effect (e.g., conditioned milk letdown release) have been
> misrepresenting what's known for decades/centuries/millenia. But in
the
> past decade the plethora of neuroscientific support for my model of
> olfactory/pheromonal conditioning of responses to visual and auditory
> input has come to include support from molecular biology across
species
> from microbes to man.
>
> In this regard, one of my most clear memories is of a presentation by
> one of the co-discoverer's of the /sry/ gene where he jokingly told an
> audience of hundreds of Endocrine Society members that they were wrong
> to think they would not now be required to learn about molecular
> biology. Even then, it was no joke! Sonny has enrolled in a course.
> Congratulations! He might begin to learn something.
>
> But the presentation was in the early 90's, and I have followed the
> research on molecular biology for more than two decades. I don't claim
> I am more intelligent than anyone else here, just better advised and
> educated when it comes to biologically based cause and effect, as
might
> well be expected from someone with 37 years experience as a medical
> laboratory scientist. Only a buffoon would repeatedly challenge me in
an
> area of my expertise, and I am a /generalist/ medical laboratory
> scientist. And if that comment insults people like Sonny, it is
because
> it's a well-deserved insult.
>
> James V. Kohl
>
<Snip>