This will be my next post to the “Creationism” FB group, where biologically uninformed antagonists have been attacking me on all my other posts or my comments on the posts of others. See, for example:
In a series of four presentations during three online conferences: “Neuroscience” “Molecular Diagnostics” “Genetics and Genomics,” I linked Einstein’s math and physics, from Schrodinger’s claims about anti-entropic energy to Dobzhansky’s claims about amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation in many different species…
Currently, more than 100 hate-filled responses have overwhelmed discussion attempts, and only a few supporters are willing to make themselves known. It is time to try to move forward.
Combinatorial effects of odorants on mouse behavior [open access] Conclusion:
“…the innate effect of an odorant on behavior can be context-dependent and subject to modification by other odorants. It is conceivable that signals derived from a single receptor can elicit innate behavioral attraction or aversion and involve hard-wired neural circuits. However, our studies indicate that these behavioral responses can be modulated by sensory inputs from other receptors via the interactions of signals derived from the different receptors within the brain. In short, innate behavioral output can be influenced by interactions within the brain among signals derived from different receptors in the nose.
My comment: The senior author is 2004 Nobel Laureate, Linda Buck. Her group again makes it more difficult to argue for beneficial mutations and natural selection in evolution because she has continued to link the mouse model to humans via the energy-dependent de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes and the nutrient-dependent innate immune system.
The article links olfaction and the innate immune system to transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of morphological and behavioral phenotypes via innate responses to odors and the physiology of reproduction. All the confusion about linking the mouse model to humans via energy-dependent hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs, which are linked to supercoiled DNA and protection of organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy is missing.
I suspect that is because all serious scientists know that the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation link all invertebrates to all vertebrates. Anna Di Cosmo’s group has shown that at several different levels of examination, and perhaps all of them can be placed into the context of this published work.
If so, I hope someone from the committee nominates Anna Di Cosmo for a Nobel Prize in Physiology and/or Medicine, which should probably be shared with Eugene Daev, since both have stayed at least a decade ahead of all other researchers who are studying RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in the context of healthy longevity compared to mutations and all pathology.
See for example:
Olfactory organ of Octopus vulgaris: morphology, plasticity, turnover and sensory characterization
Cytogenetic approaches for determining ecological stress in aquatic and terrestrial biosystems
See also, my new post to the Creationism FB group. There’s been no progress towards discussion during the past 3 hours.