We anticipate the identification of a core neural circuit for sexual preferences to be a starting point for further sophisticated investigations into the neural principles of sexual behavior and particularly of its aberrations.
My comment: They link sexual orientation in yeasts to humans but fail to recognize the fact that it is nutrient energy-dependent and pheromone-controlled by RNA methylation, the innate immune system, and supercoiled DNA.
20 years after we published our review of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from yeasts to humans, our colleagues who are researching sexual orientation still try to put RNA methylation, learning and memory into the the context of their ridiculous theories about evolution.
In summary, we identified a unique, phylogenetically old neural signature of sexual preference in humans. This fingerprint of evolution cannot dissolve the nature/nurture dichotomy of sexual preferences. Yet, our findings support the notion that mate choice and sexual preferences are strongly biologically anchored (Grosjean et al., 2008). This delineation of a core neural circuit for sexual preferences can serve as a solid basis for further detailed investigations into various aspects of sexual behavior, e.g., the largely unknown neural fundament of paraphilias and of their enigmatic, virtual specificity to men.
See for comparison: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
Parenthetically it is interesting to note even the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a gene-based equivalent of sexual orientation (i.e., a-factor and alpha-factor physiologies). These differences arise from different epigenetic modifications of an otherwise identical MAT locus (Runge and Zakian, 1996; Wu and Haber, 1995).
1997 Organizational actions of sex hormones on sexual partner preference They refused to link energy-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation from pheromones to sexual orientation, and nearly all pseudoscientists followed their lead.
These experiments suggest that sexual partner preference may result from organizational hormone actions in this pair-bonding species.
My comment: They refused to link energy-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation from pheromones to sexual orientation, and nearly all pseudoscientists followed their lead.
…nine bioethicists and activists resigned as advisers to his longitudinal study in protest. “I just lost my patience,” says Alice Dreger, a bioethicist who used to work at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, and who was among the first to leave the study.
My comment: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults was published in October 2014. Testing for the single nucleotide polymorphism that links a single amino acid substitution to behavior during life history transitions is currently not being used to assess differences in sexual orientation that are very likely to be linked to experience-dependent genetically predisposed responses via classically conditioned patterns of dopaminergic rewards.
See for example: Considering the role of conditioning in sexual orientation
S Marc Breedlove is also a co-author. In a forthcoming text book he addresses some concerns about epigenetics as if they had not already been resolved by the claim that there is no defined boundary between epigenetics and genetics. Breedlove intends to contribute to debate that is not occurring among serious scientists. Serious scientists do not claim that different meanings for epigenetics make it difficult to know what someone means when they say epigenetic.
But, how would anyone who learned about cell type differentiation at Berkeley know the difference between a mutation and an epigenetically effected RNA-mediated amino acid substitution? Students are taught that any change in gene expression, including when steroid-receptor complexes bind the chromatin, or cFos is expressed in the brain after an experience, is epigenetic.
Every biological process involves changes in gene expression, which means this broad definition of epigenetic would apply to every biological and every psychological process. Obviously, any adjective that applies to every noun has lost its usefulness. Similarly, every time mutation is used to link biologically-based cause and effect to morphological and behavioral phenotypes in all genera, a term that has never been useful is used to link the evolution of biodiversity to an unknown process.
(1) Mutation is the source of all genetic variation on which any form of evolution is dependent. Mutation is the change of genomic structure and includes nucleotide substitution, insertion/deletion, segmental gene duplication, genomic duplication, changes in gene regulatory systems, transposition of genes, horizontal gene transfer, etc. (2) Natural selection is for saving advantageous mutations and eliminating harmful mutations. Selective advantage of the mutation is determined by the type of DNA change, and therefore natural selection is an evolutionary process initiated by mutation. It does not have any creative power in contrast to the statements made by some authors. (p 196)” — Mutation-Driven Evolution
My comment: Aristotle used the theory of epigenesis to describe a process he observed in embryonic chicks. The shape of the body gradually changes as new structures are acquired and the embyo grows more complex with time.
See also: Epigenesis (biology)
In biology, epigenesis is the process by which plants, animals and fungi develop from a seed, spore or egg through a sequence of steps in which cells differentiate and organs form. As opposed to preformationism, it is also called neoformationism.
The originator of theory of epigenesis was Aristotle in his book On the Generation of Animals. Though the theory seems an obvious fact to us in today’s genetic age, nonetheless the theory was not given much credence in former times because of the dominance for many centuries of Creationist theories of life’s origins.
However, during the late 18th century an extended and controversial debate by biologists finally led epigenesis to eclipse the long-established preformationist view. The embryologist Caspar Friedrich Wolff famously refuted preformationism in 1759 in favor of epigenesis, though this did not sound the death knell of preformationist ideology.
See also: Google Books Engram viewer: microRNA, epigenetic
MicroRNA flanking sequences epigenetically link the sun’s anti-entropic virucidal energy from hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution to the innate immune system and supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genome from virus-driven entropy. Despite the fact that energy and an energy trap is required for cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all species, neo-Darwinian theorists have placed Aristotle’s claims into definitions of epigenetics that prevent students from understanding the fact that chickens and their eggs did not create themselves, or simultaneously emerge.
For instance, does it make sense to talk about dark variants of cell and cell membrane? Can one tell whether it was pro-cell or bio-molecules that emerged first? It seems that all these structures could have emerged simultaneously. What emerged was dark matter and its emergence involved the emergence of all the others. Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously. — Matti Pitkanen in “Was ribosome the first self-replicator?“
…ribozymes have made an interesting niche for themselves in the field of abiogenesis. The evolution of a successful RNA polymerase ribozyme is a lofty goal. While its discovery would not be the be-all and end-all of abiogenesis research, it would represent an important stepping stone between prebiotic chemistry and life. The encapsulation of such a ribozyme is also an important step, as it would enable a system of heredity and evolution through natural selection. Based on progress in current research, it is only a matter of time before that ribozyme is discovered. — Andrew Jones in Lipid Encapsulation of Self-Replicating Ribozymes
Based on his writings, both published and unpublished, James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others’ research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published. — Andrew Jones inCriticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
See for comparison: An Epigenetic Trap Stabilizes Singular Olfactory Receptor Expression
…down-regulation of the amine oxidase family histone demethylase LSD1 during activation of individual olfactory receptor (OR) genes in the mammalian nose has been suggested to create an “epigenetic trap” that prevents the activation of additional OR genes (53). More generally, H3K9 demethylases may act as surveillance enzymes that prevent the formation of spurious H3K9 methylated domains, which may lead to epigenetic mutations and gene inactivation.
Variation is not nutrient availability and the something that is doing the selecting is not the individual organism. A feature of an educated person is to realize what they do not know. Sadly, you don’t know that you have an incorrect understanding Darwinian biological evolution. — Jay R. Feierman
My comment: S. Marc Breedlove knows more than Jay R. Feierman will ever know about biology, and Breedlove is preparing an undergraduate textbook. He attempts to address the meaning of epigenetics in the context of what he understands about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation, which is virtually nothing. In that regard, he does more damage than Feierman, because Breedlove is considered to be an expert on cell type differentiation.
He will discuss the theory of preformationism that led to ideas about epigenesis, before the term epigenesis was taken out of context by theorists. Epigenesis became epigenetics because theorists needed to invent a term that allowed them to claim that there was a defined boundary between genesis and epigenesis. The decided to use de Vries definition of “mutation” to link epigenesis to the genesis of morphological and behavioral diversity.
The confusion they caused is due to the fact that they never linked mutations to differences in behavior. Until they began their misrepresentations of biologically-based cause and effect, “epigenetic” referred to a change that one could inherit. It made sense to all serious scientists that the epigenetic landscape must somehow be linked to the physical landscape of DNA. Mutated sequences of nucleotides in DNA that altered the expression of a gene were not likely to be fixed in organized genomes via the physiology of reproduction. That led to factual representations of how RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are linked from methylated genes in the parent to methylated genes in their offspring.
Then, the definition of epigenetic had to be expanded to fit ridiculous theories about mutation-driven evolution.
See also: Language: Disputed definitions
I mentioned to S. Marc Breedlove that I could either put him ahead of all other textbook authors, by placing his claims into the context of the last 2 decades of published works by serious scientists, or leave him in their dust by paraphrasing his claims. I made him aware that I have published two more reviews on epigenetics since 2008, and that I’m not going to take the fall-back position that Dobzhansky (1964) mentioned in Biology, molecular and organismic.
The notion has gained some currency that 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! I have heard a man whose official title happens to be Professor of Zoology declare to an assembly of his colleagues that “a good man cannot teach zoology. A good man can teach, of course, only molecular biology.
Such pronunciamentos can be dismissed as merely ridiculous. They are, however, caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people, whose views deserve an honest and careful consideration and analysis. Science must cope with new problems that arise and devise new approaches to old problems. Some lines of research become less profitable and less exciting and others more so.
I suggested that Breedlove might want to look at the latest information on my blog site and stop discussing competing notions about what epigenetic means. No one who is not a pseudoscientist cares what prominent scientists claim who have competing definitions of the term. That’s how, in the primary literature, you can tell the difference between a pseudoscientist and a serious scientist. Serious scientists do not use definitions to link angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera.They use what is known about RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, which is what Dobzhansky did in 1973. Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Pseudoscientists failed to recognize that “the light” is sunlight.
See: Schrodinger (1944)
See also: MicroRNA, mRNA, amino acid
When all serious scientists learn to link energy-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance from fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction to supercoiled DNA, pseudoscientists will stop claiming that mutation-driven evolution links natural selection from ecological variation to ecological adaptations. Only energy-dependent changes in biophysically constrained cell type differentiation can link the innate immune system to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy via the conserved molecular mechanisms of learning and memory.
Although the functional roles of m6A in alternative splicing, translational dynamics, and mRNA transport in vivo remain to be investigated, we postulate that one of the functions for the increase in m6A in response to learning is to constrain the sorting efficiencies or turnover of nascent mRNAs.
My comment: Simply put, they suggest energy-dependent RNA methylation links changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance from learning and memory to the physiology of reproduction and supercoiled DNA, which biophysically constrains all cell type differentiation in the context of energy-dependent fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and protein folding chemistry.
All variation in all living genera is biophysically constrained by the same molecular mechanisms, and pseudoscientists have ignored that fact since the time that neo-Darwinian theories began to gain acceptance. The theories were based on de Vries 1902 definition of “mutation” and assumptions about how long it would take one species to evolve into another.
“This fingerprint of evolution cannot dissolve the nature/nurture dichotomy of sexual preferences.”
My comment: There is no such thing as a “fingerprint” of evolution, because there is no such thing as the evolution of sex differences in cell types or the evolution of sexual preferences.
All variations must link energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems and all serious scientists know that they must also link all morphological phenotypes and behavioral phenotypes from the innate immune system to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy.