Empirical Economics vs Affective Neuronal Selection
(click to enlarge)Schrodinger (1944) linked the creation of sunlight to all biodiversity via the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in soil bacteria and plant growth, which exemplfies light-activated microRNA biogenesis.
See first: Kording lab refutes theistic evolution (1)
Conclusion: Attempts by biologically uninformed science journalists to pin down what is known about the links from ecological variation to ecological adaptation have caused Carl Zimmer to claim “We need a new definition of what heredity is…”
See also: Kording lab refutes theistic evolution (2)
Researchers from the Republic of South Korea have already linked light-actvated microRNA biogenesis to biophysically constrained viral latency and all biodiversity via the physiology of reproduction.
Quasi-experimental causality in neuroscience and behavioural research (11/26/18)
In many scientific domains, causality is the key question. For example, in neuroscience, we might ask whether a medication affects perception, cognition or action. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard to establish causality, but they are not always practical. The field of empirical economics has developed rigorous methods to establish causality even when randomized controlled trials are not available. Here we review these quasi-experimental methods and highlight how neuroscience and behavioural researchers can use them to do research that can credibly demonstrate causal effects.
Empirical economics is divorced from the reality of energy-dependent top-down causation and the biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry that all serious scientists have linked from the physiology of reproduction to healthy longevity and all biodiversity without the use of mathematical models.
The Kording lab seems to be stuck in past misrepresentations that failed to link what organism eat to all biodiversity via the physiology of reproduction.
See On the Influence of the Human Instinct in the Prevention and Cure of Disease, Chiefly in Reference to Diet (1855)
and: Understanding and accounting for relational context is critical for social neuroscience (2014)
8 Comments – James Vaughn Kohl and George F R Ellis.
James Vaughn Kohl
“New data on how genetic predispositions are epigenetically linked to phenotypically distinct neuroanatomy and behaviors is provided in the honeybee model. Across-species comparisons from insects to vertebrates clearly show that the epigenetic influence of food odors and pheromones continues throughout the life of organisms that collectively survive whereas individuals do not. These comparisons also attest to the relative salience of sensory input from the rearing environment. For example, when viewed from the consistency of animal models and conditioned behaviors, food odors are obviously more important to food selection than is our visual perception of food. Animal models affirm that food odor makes food either appealing or unappealing. Animal models reaffirm that it is the pheromones of other animals that makes them either appealing or unappealing.
Socioaffective neuroscience and psychology may progress more quickly by keeping these apparent facts in mind: Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans (Keller et al., 2007; Kohl, 2007; Villarreal, 2009; Vosshall, Wong, & Axel, 2000).”
— Kohl, JV (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 2012 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24693349
17 Apr 2014 at 03:07am
George F R Ellis
This is absolutely correct and forms part of the larger concept that top-down causation is a key factor not just in the way the brain works but in broader contexts in biology and even physics. This is explored here: https://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/1.toc 25 Apr 2014 at 07:49am
James Vaughn Kohl
Thanks for commenting and calling attention to the background work that many seem to have missed.
To what should we attribute the failure of evolutionary theorists to consider the role of physics and chemistry in the molecular biology that links morphological and behavioral phenotypes in species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms, which link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in all organized genomes? Are the scientific facts too difficult to grasp, or are they simply being ignored?
Note, some discussion of where your efforts have led occurred here: ‘A Challenge to the Supremacy of DNA as the Genetic Material’ after Ricki Lewis noticed the publication by Annila and Baverstock: https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2014/03/20/challenge-supremacy-dna-genetic-material/
Clearly, however, we have evidence in that discussion and many other discussions that theorists would rather avoid learning anything new than acknowledge the recent assertion that: “If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based.” https://jp.physoc.org/content/589/5/1007.abstract
25 Apr 2014 at 12:51pm
George F R Ellis
Denis Noble has written some excellent material along these lines, see https://www.musicoflife.co.uk/ (both the book, and the discussions there where he answers his critics) as well as that article
James Vaughn Kohl
Thanks again. Timothy W. Bredy’s group just made a giant step forward from ‘Dynamic DNA methylation: a prime candidate for genomic metaplasticity and behavioral adaptation’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23041052
With publication of ‘Neocortical Tet3-mediated accumulation of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine promotes rapid behavioral adaptation’ https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/22/1318906111.abstract they bring to bear what is currently known by you and others, like Denis Noble, about biophysical constraints on ecological adaptation. The constraints have been ignored by theorists who seem not to realize that the ‘music of life’ is nutrient-dependent. There is no orchestration by mutations — despite the claims of theorists.
For those who have not followed the information on Tet-mediated changes in cell types associated with 5 hmcs, cell type differentiation is clearly nutrient-dependent, which means that species diversity is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
For those who have followed the information on Tet-mediated changes, you may want to see “A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206328
I mention that since no one would review my 3/13/14 submission on nutritional epigenetics — even though it was an invited review based on my publication last year of ‘Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model’ https://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20553/27989
29 Apr 2014 at 12:30pm
George F R Ellis
Great links, thanks. I’m intrigued by your work on pheromones. It is just possible it might relate to the issue of primordial emotional systems, see Affective Neuronal Selection: The Nature of the Primordial Emotion Systems
Attempts to link empirical economics from primordial emotion systems to biophysically constrained food energy-dependent viral latency and behavior are doomed to fail because Schrodinger (1944) linked the creation of sunlight to all biodiversity via the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in soil bacteria and plant growth, which exemplfies light-activated microRNA biogenesis.
