Summary: …they [Koonin’s group] substitute what they consider to be a plausible hypothesis. It places their observations into the context of a universal trend that is conserved in all life after the trend emerged, which was sometime before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms emerged and began to evolve.
The vibrational theory of olfaction for the win Published 31 October 2017
Neuronal Representation of Social Information in the Medial Amygdala of Awake Behaving Mice Publication stage: In Press Corrected Proof
Two of the three articles above were reported to the Human Ethology Yahoo Group on November 1, 2017.
89773 Mini-microscopes reveal brain circuitry behind social behavior
See: Mini-microscopes reveal brain circuitry behind social behavior Posted: 31 Oct 2017 12:12 PM PDT
A microscope lens implanted deep inside a mouse’s brain shows different patterns of neural activity when the mouse interacts with males, females, or other stimuli. Now, researchers have discovered that sexual experience can trigger long-term changes in these brain patterns.
Here is the comment I submitted to the Human Ethology Yahoo group, which is moderated by Jay R. Feierman, who (since 1995) I have used as an example of a biologically uninformed science idiot. Feierman, for example, consistently ignores any science news that does not support the pseudoscientific nonsense of his ridiculous theories. For comparison, I wrote:
The creation of quantized energy (i.e., sunlight); the creation of ATP; the creation of RNA; and the physiology of pheromone-controlled biophysically constrained viral latency have been placed into the context of the epigenetically effected changes in brain patterns.
The vibrational theory of olfaction was placed into the context of how Olfaction Warps Visual Time Perception via publication of Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction
The feedback loops link natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality from the sense of smell in bacteria to the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in all living genera via naturally occurring base editing, RNA editing, and RNA-directed DNA methylation, which links amino acid substitutions in organized genomes to protection from the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA. The virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA causes the mutations that cause all pathology in species from bacteria to humans.
Scientists changed the 1,584th amino acid found in most animals (asparagine) to the amino acid that the poison frogs have at that spot (threonine). The link from all vertebrates to mammals was exemplified when rats with the frog’s version of this protein survived exposure to the toxin. Survival of all species has always been placed into the context of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life.” His conditions are food energy-dependent and pheromone-controlled in the context of the physiology of reproduction. Only biologically uninformed theorists have claimed that mutation-driven evolution somehow occurs in the context of their mathematical models, which have no explanatory power whatsoever. All extant life is ecologically adapted to ecological variation. Extinctions exemplify the exceptions.
Previously, Feierman’s claims became increasingly more foolish. See for example:
Jay R. Feierman: 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 [of] Darwinian biological evolution.
Jay R. Feierman: I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement.
I’m not sure if there is any experimental evidence of biophysically constrained biologically-based cause and effect that supports Feierman’s ridiculous claims, but they may be based on this claim:
That claim comes from A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution, which is an example of overwhelming ignorance.
Simply put, they substitute what they consider to be a plausible hypothesis. It places their observations into the context of a universal trend that is conserved in all life after the trend emerged, which was sometime before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms emerged and began to evolve.