From cells to society (sans mutations)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: August 21, 2013

The human brain—from cells to society Stephane Berghmans, Eva Hoogland, and Iain Patten

Excerpt: “If we are to make practical use of scientific concepts, we must understand the sociocultural context in which they are received and understood.”

My comment: The scientific concept of linking sensory input to gene activation in hormone-secreting nerve cells of tissue in the brain, which links olfactory/pheromonal input directly to hormones that affect behavior, has been largely abandoned due to suggestions made that fit the concept of mutation-driven evolution.  If not for that ridiculous misconception of biologically based cause and effect, researchers could proceed from a neuroscientific approach to brain plasticity and the development of experience-dependent genetically predisposed behaviors.

Excerpt: “…gene expression determines the molecular composition of the brain, which in turn defines the basic building blocks for the cells that will regulate its physiology. At the next level, neuronal connectivity, defined by synaptic interactions, underlies the establishment of microcircuits and, ultimately, the gross connectivity of brain regions.”

My comment: When it becomes clear that olfactory/pheromonal input allows the epigenetic landscape to become the physical landscape of our DNA/gene expression, which determines the molecular composition of the brain, other may realize that the basic building blocks of the cells that regulate the brain’s physiology are conserved across species from microbes to man. If the molecular mechanisms were not conserved, adaptive evolution could not occur. That is why I can say, without hesitation, that “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans.

Excerpt: 3. An improved understanding of the relationship between biology and environment, particularly in relation to developmental plasticity and emerging pathology.

My comment: This aspect of what others are trying to achieve has also been addressed in the FDA “Critical Path Initiative” and ASAM policy statement on addiction. Both focus on what is neuroscientifically known and encourage others who don’t know anything about neuroscience to learn about it. The response from evolutionary theorists seems to be an overwhelming NO, WE WILL NOT DO THAT!

Why not, is the question? The answer: We will not loosen our grip on mutation-driven evolution.  For example, On August 14, 2013, comments from the ISHE yahoo group moderator changed from his oft-repeated regurgitation of scientifically unsupported opinion: “Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts.” The change was to “mutations are A substrate upon which natural selection acts.” Attempts to address the change in his claims were not posted to the group because I clearly show in my published works and in more recent presentations that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. The moderator thinks that my claims are redundant. They are not as redundant as claims for mutation-driven evolution, yet no one will tell me how natural selection acts on mutations or answer the question: Is there a model for that?

Eliminating avian models from the distorted view of adaptive evolution attributed to visual input associated with plumage color (and nutrient acquisition) should go a long way towards forcing others to acknowledge their lack of any model. This was already anticipated, and should have occurred at the time we learned of recent findings on the head crest of pigeons, and the beak morphology of finches. Why would any reasonable person need to wait for proof that female birds choose their male mates via the sense of smell? ScienceShot: Forget Plumage, Birds Sniff Out Good Mates.

In reality, there has never been any question about pheromones in birds. See Pheromones in birds: myth or reality? Can you imagine how you would feel if you missed all the evidence that led to the across-species comparisons of cause and effect in adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction in species from microbes to man just because you ignored the likely role of pheromones in birds? If you were a yahoo discussion group moderator whose academic credentials were called into question because you asked “What about birds?” and repeatedly refused to accept the most obvious answer, while propagating mutations theory, do you think you would be willing to post evidence you had been wrong about cause and effect for your entire career?

Society exemplifies adaptive evolution dependent on nutrition and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones in species from microbes to man. Even if you continue to argue that evolution is mutation-driven, I hope that any future societal breakdown does not result in you being eaten by mutants.  I do not wish for anyone to serve as a model for that.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: