Did our adapted mind evolve?

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: September 22, 2014

(click to enlarge)

What is currently know about neuroendocrine regulation clearly links ecological variation to ecological adaptations manifested in morphological and behavioral phenotypes via RNA-mediated events without the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory. Evidence that biological facts about cause and effect make no difference to theorists shows up in what we can expect from conference presentations next year.

ADAPTED MIND, ADAPTED BODY: THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND ITS NEUROENDOCRINE REGULATION

The idea that the human behavior evolved in the context of neuroendocrine regulation of morphological differences that led to an adapted mind adds back all the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists and human ethologists since Dobzhansky (1964) labeled them ‘bird watchers’ and ‘butterfly collectors.’
“… the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!”
In the same article, Dobzhansky noted that “Ingram and others found that hemoglobin S differs from A in the substitution of just a single amino acid, valine in place of glutamic acid in the beta chain of the hemoglobin molecule.”
In Dobzhansky (1973), serious scientists learned that “…the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla.”
Human ethologists and evolutionary theorists have continued to ignore all experimental evidence that links ecological variation to ecological adaptations via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man. They would rather have people continue to believe that human behavior somehow evolved than to admit that no experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect suggests that any species evolved. All experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect shows that ecological variation leads from RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated events to ecological adaptations.

Purpose of the Workshop

“In conjunction with the launch of the new Springer scientific journal Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, the broad goal of this Workshop is to bring together researchers and students who conduct theoretical or empirical research on any aspects of adaptive human behavior (e.g., cooperation, affiliation and bonding, competition and aggression, sex and relationships, parenting, decision-making, including motivation, cognition, and emotion), with emphasis on approaches that also address the biological (e.g. neural, endocrine, immune, cardiovascular, genetic) mechanisms controlling behavior.

The invited speakers include leading researchers in the fields of evolutionary biology/psychology/anthropology and behavioral/social neuroscience and neuroendocrinology. Specific goals of the Workshop are to reflect critically on the current state of the art in these fields and disciplines, and to identify and discuss major issues and future research themes, including the integration of complementary research approaches.”

I find it impossible to believe that any researcher who believes in the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics can effectively address “…the biological (e.g. neural, endocrine, immune, cardiovascular, genetic) mechanisms controlling behavior.” Everything currently known by serious scientists show how RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated events link ecological variation to “neural, endocrine, immune, cardiovascular, genetic” and all other biologically-based cell type differentiation to ecologically-adapted morphological and behavioral diversity via conserved molecular mechanisms that eliminate neo-Darwinian theories of evolution from any further consideration whatsoever. Those ridiculous theories should have been eliminated by all researchers in 1964, or by 1973 at the latest. Instead, the presenters at a 2015 conference stand ready to continue touting their pseudoscientific nonsense.

Speakers (to be confirmed)

Coren Apicella, University of Pennsylvania, USA
David Buss, University of Texas, USA
Justin Carré, Nipissing University, CANADA
Leda Cosmides, University of California Santa Barbara, USA
Marco Del Giudice, University of New Mexico, USA
Ruth Feldman, Bar-Ilan University, ISRAEL
Daniel Fessler, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Mark Flinn, University of Missouri, USA
Steven Gangestad, University of New Mexico, USA
Peter Gray, University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA
Martie Haselton, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Markus Heinrichs, University of Freiburg, GERMANY
Ben Jones, University of Glasgow, UK
Dario Maestripieri, University of Chicago, USA
Pranjal Mehta, University of Oregon, USA
Jon Maner, Northwestern University, USA
Stephanie Preston, University of Michigan, USA
David Puts, Penn State University, USA
James Roney, University of California Santa Barbara, USA
Alicia Salvador, University of Valencia, SPAIN
Oliver Schultheiss, Friedrich-Alexander University, GERMANY
Alfonso Troisi, University of Rome, ITALY
Sari van Anders, University of Michigan, USA
Jack van Honk, Utrecht Universiteit, THE NETHERLANDS
Mark van Vugt, Vrije Universiteit, THE NETHERLANDS
Michelle Wirth, Notre Dame University, USA

Perhaps, I’m wrong. Hopefully, I am! I see the names of people who sometimes appear to have moved forward by focusing on experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. However, bringing them together for a meeting designed to promote Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology in the context of ridiculous theories seems to be only a continuation of what started several decades ago.

“[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as “changes in gene frequencies in natural populations.” The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another…. No, it wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.” — Replace the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism): An Interview With Denis Noble

Instead of replacing the neo-Darwinism with facts about RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated events that link ecological variation to ecological adaptations, it appears that attempts will continue to ignore biological facts and to tout evolutionary theory in the context of the physiology that links ecological variation to ecological adaptations that we detailed in our award-winning review: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.

See also: The Remarkable Language of Cells and other posts, such as Alternative RNA Splicing in Evolution and Protein Folding in the Neuron by Jon Lieff, M.D., who has consistently and accurately continued to represent biologically-based cause and effect in the context of what is known about RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated events.

His works are akin to those of the late Lewis Thomas, some of which were published in a book: The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. See for example, on page 16: A Fear of Pheromones first published in 1971. “WHAT are we going to do if it turns out that we have pheromones? What on earth would we be doing with such things? With the richness of speech, and all our new devices for communication, why would we want to release odors into the air to convey information about anything?”

See also, On Smell published in 1980. “I should think we might fairly gauge the future of biological science, centuries ahead by estimating the time it will take to reach a complete comprehensive understanding of odor. It may not seem a profound enough problem to dominate all the life sciences, but it contains, piece by piece, all the mysteries.” p. 732 — as cited in The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality (1995 / 2002).

Note also that the editor of Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology is Dario Maestripieri. He co-authored Effects of Neonatal Testicular Suppression with a GnRH Antagonist on Social Behavior in Group-Living Juvenile Rhesus Monkeys in 1995. The article reported findings that linked suppression of the GnRH-directed surge in luteinizing hormone to the behavior of males with suppressed neonatal testosterone. Simply put, they were “momma’s boys” that initiated proximity with their mothers (i.e., hung around their mothers and followed their mothers) more than did males with normal or elevated levels of T. I attributed the GnRH-directed surge in luteinizing hormone and testosterone to a genetically predisposed postnatal response to maternal pheromones that continues to masculinize the male brain for up to three years after birth via RNA-mediated events that sexually differentiate cell types in the brain and body. The idea that this cause and effect relationship could be portrayed in the context of an evolved response is silly. It is a nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled example of how hormones organize and activate behaviors in all ecologically adapted vertebrates and invertebrates. This was established in vertebrates in 1996: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior “…prepubertal children secrete luteinizing hormone (LH) and presumably gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in a pulsatile manner, well before physical evidence of sexual maturation is apparent. Since the neuroendocrine mechanisms for the control both of gonadal and, in part, of adrenal steroidogenesis are active, if the Gd–H–B model is influenced by social-environmental sensory stimuli before puberty occurs, such stimuli also would be capable of influencing long-term behavior.” Others extended our yeast to mammals model of hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors to insects in Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior and to cell type differentiation that occurs throughout life in honeybees Honey bees as a model for understanding mechanisms of life history transitions.

The honeybee model organism links nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated events from ecological variation to the pheromone-controlled ecologically-adapted behavior of individuals via epigenetically-effected cell type differentiation. Cell type differentiation continues to occur throughout the life of every cell in every individual of every species. Attempts by experts to tell anyone that human behavior evolved in the context of evolutionary events should include attempts to explain how any evolutionary event could lead to adaptations in behavior that must occur throughout the life of every organism of every living (i.e., ecologically-adapted) species. We now have a list of potential presenters who can be asked what they know about any evolutionary event so that what they know can be compared to everything known about how the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man. See for a brief review: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation)

See also: “Experience-dependent changes in DNA methylation can exert profound effects on neuronal function and behaviour. A single learning event can induce a variety of DNA modifications within the neuronal genome, some of which may be common to all individuals experiencing the event, whereas others may occur in a subset of individuals.” The experience-dependent changes are due to RNA-directed DNA methylation (i.e., RNA-mediated events, not evolutionary events).