Human pheromone deniers: What's next?

Adapted from Human pheromones: What should these idiots do next?

RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link the nutrient-dependent physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction to morphological and behavioral phenotypes in species from microbes to humans. Why would any serious scientist claim that there is a need to find human pheromones? Does any serious scientist not realize that the molecular mechanisms that link ecological variation to ecological adaptation must be the same in all living genera? Who wants to keep pretending that we are somehow different from other animals in that context.

Human pheromones: Where did we go wrong? What should we do next?


…if we are to find human pheromones, we need to treat ourselves as if we were a newly discovered mammal, and use the rigorous chemical methods and bioassays already proven successful in pheromone research on other species.

My comment: This is nonsense touted by a biologically uninformed science idiot. He does not know how to link nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to fixation of amino acid substitutions. The substitutions differentiate cell types in the context of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.
Human physiology links an androstenol/androsteone mixture and a copulin mixture to species-specific behaviors via differences in the nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions, which stabilize the organized genomes in all living genera.
What Wyatt and others like him should do next is learn what serious scientists know about the RNA-mediated links from atoms to ecosystems in all living genera.
See also:

Wimps or warriors? Honey bee larvae absorb the social culture of the hive, study finds


“It’s hard to imagine what elements of the brain are influenced during the larval period that then survive the massive reorganization of the brain to bias behavior in this way,” Robinson said.

My comment: Robinson cited our 1996 Hormones and Behavior of RNA-mediated hormone-organized and hormone-activated behavior 15 years ago as a co-author of “Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior.” Robinson’s claims in Elekonich and Robinson (2000) were linked to Elekonich and Roberts (2005) claims about life history transitions in the honeybee model.

Elekonich and Roberts (2005) claims linked our claims about RNA-mediated hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors to human life history transitions in Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults.
The link is a single nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution like the one that Dobzhansky (1973) reported in the context of cell type differentiation that varied between chimpanzees and modern humans compared to gorillas. “…the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla” (p. 127)
When Robinson claims “”It’s hard to imagine what elements of the brain are influenced…” — that link behavioral development from larvae to adults, do you think he lacks imagination? When Wyatt asks “Where did we go wrong? What should we do next?” do you think he is a biologically uninformed science idiot?
I think Robinson and Wyatt lack the ability to recognize a pattern of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated pheromone-controlled behavioral development that links the honeybee brain to the human brain via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior.
I wonder if the problem is bigger than that, however, because in 2005 a 2004 Nobel Laureate who shared the prize in Physiology and/or Medicine co-authored: Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction. Robinson’s claims and Wyatt’s questions make it appear that for some reason they do not believe that Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction in all species from microbes to man, despite the conserved molecular mechanisms that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in all living genera via their physiology of reproduction.
See also:

Global Survey of Variation in a Human Olfactory Receptor Gene Reveals Signatures of Non-Neutral Evolution


The evolutionary source of variation in human olfactory receptors is not fully understood but several studies have found evidence for positive selection acting on some human olfactory receptor genes (Gilad et al. 2000, 2003, 2005; Menashe et al. 2002; Gilad and Lancet 2003; Gimelbrant et al. 2004; Alonso et al. 2008; Moreno-Estrada et al. 2008). The underlying adaptive context of possible selective pressures acting on olfactory receptor genes is not known but may be linked to food (Matsui et al. 2010; Jaeger et al. 2013; McRae et al. 2013) and health (Spehr et al. 2003; Griffin et al. 2009; Neuhaus et al. 2009; Pluznick et al. 2009; Gu et al. 2014; Busse et al. 2014). In addition, copy number variants (deletions and duplications of large genetic segments across genomes) have affected the olfactory receptor gene family significantly more often than other genomic coding regions (Hasin et al. 2008; Waszak et al. 2010; Veerappa et al. 2013). The phenotypic impact of copy number variants on odorant perception is currently unknown. This article is focused on genetic variation in OR7D4, which has been associated with an olfactory phenotype (Keller et al. 2007).

Reported as:

Researchers show how our sense of smell evolved, including in cave men


they found that populations from Africa – where humans come from – tend to be able to smell it, while those from the northern hemisphere tend not to. This shows that when humans first evolved in Africa, they would have been able to detect this odour.

My comment: Each time you see the claim that humans evolved in Africa or anywhere else, ask how that might be possible if the physiology of reproduction was not nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Then, ask how any organism “evolved” in the context of neo-Darwinian nonsense about mutations and natural selection.
When you realize there is only one way to link atoms to ecosystems via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding, you can work as a serious scientist, or tell pseudoscientists where to take their ridiculous theories about olfaction that do not link ecological variation to ecological adaptation in all genera via their metabolic and genetic networks. As soon as a pseudoscientist mentions “evolution” ask about how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptation via RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions? The lack of any intelligent answer will help you determine the difference between a serious scientist and a pseudoscientist.
See also: 

Some like it hot: Moth and butterfly species respond differently to climate change


“…each species is sensitive to different aspects of the climate, such as winter temperature or summer rainfall. Variation in how much the climate they are sensitive to has changed for them – their ‘exposure’ – is also a contributing factor in their varied responses.”

This links climate change from the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in moths and butterflies and all other invertebrate and vertebrate morphological and behavioral phenotypes via thermodynamic cycles of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry. Then they ask what some species like more than others about whether they can find enough food (and/or water) to reproduce.
SARCASM ALERT The underlying question is why they simply don’t evolve into another species via mutations and natural selection for foods they prefer and better climates. Simply put, why haven’t they mutated and evolved to humans that spend winters in the south and summers up north?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *