Learning to Fly: Decoding Neural Circuits in Drosophila melanogaster


Anita enjoyed posters ranging from use of microRNAs to model Huntington’s disease(22) to the making of recombinant probes for synapse labeling (23). She spoke of how researchers at all career stages, ranging from graduate students to Nobel Laureates, were present in one venue to share their insights.

My comments: What insights will researchers share after publication of  MicroRNA-encoded behavior in Drosophila and comments about Receptor methylation controls behavior?

Since the time of the 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, which I attended in New Orleans, More than 20,000 microRNA-Focused Publications Were Assessed as a Means to Characterize the Field.

Nutrient-dependent base pair changes and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions have been linked from atoms to ecosystems via the biophysically constrained receptor-mediated chemistry of protein folding during thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation in all living genera. It has become obvious to all serious scientists that supercoiled DNA protects organized genomes from virus-driven entropy via conserved molecular mechanisms that link physics and chemistry to the biodiversity manifested in morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to man.

The fact that nutrient-dependent microRNAs have now been linked from receptor methylation to the control of behavior eliminates any further consideration for the neo-Darwinian nonsense about mutations and evolution by putting Darwin’s “conditions of life” back where they belong. He repeatedly asserted that “conditions of life” must be considered before natural selection, but population geneticists bastardized his theory and they continue to do so to this day.

Can anything stop them? See for example: Being Human: Bridging the Gap between the Sciences of Body and Mind

In his review of this book, Jay R. Feierman notes that Wulf Schiefenhövel’s foreword for the English Edition “…summarizes the strength of the book quite eloquently in words that have as much applicability to theology as they do to science.”

“New insights do not easily penetrate into the inner sanctum of the established sciences. This is mainly due to the inherent inertia of academic routines, but the established sciences also spend a considerable amount of their resources in shoring up their territories against unwanted external influences. It requires either a powerful flywheel to overcome the deadlock or a patiently led discussion, one of which has the effect of wearing away at the hard rock of petrified official canons, drop by drop. As Kuhn (1962) points out, while the defenders of a particular official paradigmatic position are located at the center of their disciplines, new ideas often come from the outside. Therefore approaches from these external positions, which are usually perceived as violations of disciplinary borders and thus sanctioned, are vitally necessary if science is to progress . . . Gerhard Medicus’ book, a reflection of his lifelong work as a psychiatrist and human ethologist, is a good example of such approaches, of triangulations which have their point of reference outside but whose effects unfold inside the disciplines . . . His book . . . invites us to: “Try this bridge.” It spans various waters, leading us to the central questions of the conditio humana: Who are we humans? What is our inner state? (p. 9)”

My comment: During the time that Wulf Schiefenhövel was president of the International Society for Human Ethology (ISHE), I asked him to stop Jay R. Feierman’s nonsense on the ISHE’s yahoo group. Feierman blocked some of my posts, edited others, and after his attacks on my credibility ended, he let others attack. Wulf Schiefenhövel made no attempt to stop the incessant nonsense and soon thereafter Jay R. Feierman banned me from participation. My award-winning publication with ethologists from Vienna, went without mention by Feierman and others. See: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.  Repeated attempt to discuss my published works, were met with claims by others that mutations and evolution were linked by natural selection. None of our claims about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in the context of molecular epigenetics were ever discussed. See: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior.

It has been 20 years since I first met Jay R. Feierman. After explaining to him the details of the mammalian model that led to publication of From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior,  he asked, “What about birds?” Others have since linked the model from atoms to ecosystems across all living genera.

Feierman has been largely responsible for preventing the dissemination of accurate information about biologically-based cause and effect.  Feierman’s claim and the quote from Schiefenhövel above attest to the problem I have with hypocrites who pretend to want others to accept ideas from those outside the inner sanctum of the established sciences at the same time they prevent dissemination of facts that link those ideas to what is currently known by serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect.

Keep Reading