From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior

In our section on molecular epigenetics from 1996 we wrote:

Genomic-imprinting is also manifest in specific parts of the X-inactivation region’s related XIST gene. Here male- and female-specific methyl-group patterns participate in X-inactivation in females and also in the preferential inactivation of the paternal X in human placentae of female concepti (Harrison, 1989; Monk, 1995). This process indicates that tissues of the early conceptus can sense and react differentially to epigenetic sexual dimorphisms on the female conceptus’ own two X chromosomes. Furthermore, variations of X-inactivation patterns often account for traits discordance in monozygotic twin females. In other words, they are often found to have nonidentical patterns of X-inactivation, yielding differing expression of noticeable X-linked traits (Machin, 1996).

The pseudoscientific nonsense about selfish genes has prevailed despite proof of how the food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction biophysically constrains viral latency in the context of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera.

The focus of pseudoscientists is still on population genetics and mathematical models that have no explanatory power.  Finally, I understand why Roger Gorski retired. Twenty-seven years ago, he wrote:

While the hypothalamic LRF pulse generatior pituitary gonadotropin gondal axis has a fundamental commonality to all mammalian species, the specialization that has evolved in different species merits emphasis.” “While photoperiodic cues and pheromones play an important role in some species, they do not in the human being.” “It is possible that the LRF neurosecretory neuron network itself is the pacemaker. – p 281. Maturation of neural mechanisms and the pubertal process. Control of the Onset of Puberty. Grumback, M.M., Sizonenko, P.C., Aubert, M.L 1990

I met Roger Gorski in 1995 and I discussed at length with him the publication of The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality. (1995/2002) The link to pheromone-controlled sexual differentiation of cell types in species from yeasts to primates became perfectly clear.

By then, I think he knew how difficult it would be to teach others the facts after contradicting himself. It made no sense for “the godfather of neuroscience” to try. For the most recent confirmation of that fact, see:

Intragenomic conflict and immune tolerance: do selfish X-linked alleles drive skewed X chromosome inactivation? (2017)

…studying immunological and reproductive differences in female mice with genetically-‐driven SXCI could answer important questions as to the broader phenotypic consequences of SXCI. Population genomic studies of regions implicated in SXCI may help us to understand the evolutionary forces driving SXCI-‐favoring alleles.

Intragenomic conflict and cancer (2002)

Intragenomic conflict occurs when some elements within the genome produce effects that enhance their own probability of replication or transmission at the expense of other elements within the same genome. Here it is proposed that mutations involved in intragenomic conflict are particularly likely to be co-opted by evolving lineages of cancer cells, and hence should be associated with the occurrence of cancer. We discuss several types of intragenomic conflict that are associated with various forms of cancer.

During the past 15 years, “intragenomic conflict” has been placed into the context of energy-dependent differences in the microRNA/messenger RNA that all serious scientists have linked from changes in electrons to ecosystems via base editing and RNA editing. Only pseudoscientists have failed to make any progress whatsoever, and they all have been stuck with their ridiculous theories.

Keep Reading