The overwhelming ignorance of sex researchers (2)
Conclusion: There is a clear link from Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in individuals and in species with differences in behavioral phenotypes. The differences are food energy-dependent and RNA-mediated. The differences link the sense of smell and the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in soil bacteria from The Bull Sperm MicroRNAome and the Effect of Fescue Toxicosis on Sperm MicroRNA Expression to the report on the Obligatory role of hypothalamic neuroestradiol during the estrogen-induced LH surge in female ovariectomized rhesus monkeys
Reported on December 12, 2017 as: Estrogen discovery could shed new light on fertility problems
Estradiol builds in the bloodstream until it reaches a concentration that causes a surge of the hypothalamic and pituitary hormones, including one called luteinizing hormone, which in turn trigger an ovary to release an egg.
“It’s a feedback loop…
From our section on “Neurosteroids” in this December 1996 Hormones and Behavior review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
Perhaps significantly, neuron-specific transcription regulation of neurosteroidogenic enzymes and subsequent neurosteroids production suggest clues to mechanisms that allow some persons to develop in accord with typical gonadal male-pattern or female-pattern hormones and have appropriate male-typical or female-typical physiques nonetheless have parameters of their sexual behavior profile quite opposite to their physical phenotype. For instance, it might be possible for local neurosteroid action in CNS loci specific for sexual orientation to operate independently of other hormonal production and separately from gross body morphology in general. This could, for instance, account for different manifestations of transsexualism and homosexuality.
The “gay agenda” served its proponents well as they attempted to bury the facts that link feedback loops from odors and pheromones to biophysically constrained viral latency.
Most sex researchers still live in fear that the biologically uninformed masses will learn that homosexual orientation is nothing more than another variation of what happens in the context of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.
See: The overwhelming ignorance of sex researchers (December 8, 2016)
All serious scientists link food energy to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction and autophagy, which protects all organized genomes from the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA. The virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA links mutations to all pathology in species from microbes to humans.
If you try to make any aspect of pathology specific to any group of individuals in any human population, you challenge the totality of experimental evidence that links top-down causation to healthy longevity. You be forced to admit that you are not perfectly healthy, which means you are not qualified to judge the mental health or judge the physical health of others. The take home message is stop judging anyone based on your ignorance.
See also the author’s copy of this award-winning review: The Mind’s Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences
The across-species genetic conservation of intercellular and extracellular chemical communication enables unicellular and multicellular organisms to functionally distinguish between self and non-self. Non-self olfactory/pheromonal input from the social environment elicits a vertebrate neuroendocrine response. The organization and activation of this neuroendocrine response modulates the concurrent maturation of the mammalian neuroendocrine system, the reproductive system, and the central nervous system during the development of sexual preferences that may be expressed in sexual behavior. Psychophysiological mechanisms for the development of these sexual preferences include focus on unconscious affects that are detailed in reciprocal cause and effect relationships. Olfactory/pheromonal conditioning elicits neuroendocrine effects accompanied by unconscious affects on the development of sexual preferences. Integrating these unconscious affects extends to humans a developmental model of behavior that includes the development of male sexual preferences for other males.
Rarely do sex researchers address the ongoing philosophical debate between canonical neo-Darwinism and Biblical creation. Perhaps this is because any debate between scientific theory and religion arises from distinctly different domains of cognitive thought. Does the acceptance of Darwin’s theory represent the glorification of Science pitted against religion, or is it a means by which Science and religion might be integrated? Integration of Science and religion might be achieved by recognizing that the key components of this olfactory/pheromonal model appear to be as irreducibly complex as the basic tenets of evolution and the basic tenets of religion.
From an evolutionary perspective, highly conserved GnRH peptide ligand/receptor signaling mechanisms are the molecular biochemical mechanisms for sexual reproduction in all organisms. These signaling mechanisms also appear to play an integral role in the development of sexual preferences. From a religious perspective, these signaling mechanisms dictate that the creation of life, which begets life, also allows for the creation of diversified life through the same mechanisms. These mechanisms allow life to recognize the difference between self and non-self and to respond to this difference.
Perhaps the creation of diversified human life gave us the ability to recognize differences between our sexual behavior and the sexual behavior of others. Since all life does not beget diversified life, those who judge sexual preferences that do not seem to result in diversified life may be judging creation itself.
It is easy to understand how someone could judge a particular sexual preference, without thought. Unconscious affects that are manifest in the development of human sexual preferences are, by their nature, a part of diversified life that few people think about. What we think about human sexual preferences becomes less meaningful when we realize that most of sexual behavior is not what we cognitively think it should be. Indeed, the largest contributor to sexual preferences that are manifest in the sexual behavior of any species appears to be unconscious affect. This also appears to be the basis for diversified life.
See this claim about diversified life for comparison: New Zealand discovery of fossilised ‘monster bird’ bones reveals a colossal, ancient penguin
The other startling thing about the new colossal fossil is its ancient age. At 55 to 60 million years old, it is nearly as old as the earliest penguin ancestors ever found. It would have lived during a geological period known as the Paleocene, just after the mass extinction 66 million years ago that wiped out non-bird dinosaurs.
The most startling thing about this ridiculous claim is that it cannot be linked from anything known to serious scientists about biophysically constrained viral latency to all biodiversity on Earth via the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction and chromosomal rearrangements in birds.
Two fixed differences among 597 amino acids drive a Val73Ile and Ala552Thr (valine to alanine) polymorphism in ZAL2m that distinguish its morphological and behavioral phenotype from ZAL2.
See also: Autophagy.pro
There is a clear link from Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in individuals and in species with differences in behavioral phenotypes. The differences are food energy-dependent and RNA-mediated. The differences link the sense of smell and the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in soil bacteria from The Bull Sperm MicroRNAome and the Effect of Fescue Toxicosis on Sperm MicroRNA Expression to the report on theObligatory role of hypothalamic neuroestradiol during the estrogen-induced LH surge in female ovariectomized rhesus monkeys