Juvenile hormone links atoms to ecosystems

A comparative perspective on epigenetics

Excerpt 1)

…adaptation and evolution emerge through network-wide responses to change at all levels of biological organisation, from proteins and membranes to organelles and cells, rather than being driven by individual genes. ‘Active causation resides in the networks, which includes many components for which there are no DNA templates’, says Noble, concluding that this novel approach provides ‘an integrated systems view of evolution’.

Excerpt 2)

‘Active causation resides in the networks, which includes many components for which there are no DNA templates’, says Noble, concluding that this novel approach provides ‘an integrated systems view of evolution’.

My comment: Why is Denis Noble still trying to force active causation to fit the view of adaptation evolution in the context of the metabolic networks and genetic networks, which are required?

Juvenile hormone triggers forager switch in leafcutter ants

The results also fit with a number of correlational studies in which JH levels have been found to be higher in foragers of several different ant species, as well as wasps, bees and termites (Dolezal et al., 2009; Giray et al., 2005; Lengyel et al., 2007; Penick et al., 2011). This suggests that JH may have a highly conserved role as a key endocrine mediator of division of labour within eusocial insect societies that has been key to their ecological and evolutionary success.

My comment: Why is she placing the link from ecological variation to epigenetically-effected RNA-mediated hormone-organized and hormone-activated phototactic behavior and ecological success into the context of teleophobic neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory? Alternatively, is she trying to place the link from atoms to ecosystems into the context of Denis Noble’s ideas about active causation and evolution?

See also: Human Pheromones: “Integrating Neuroendocrinology and Ethology”
My comment: Now that phototaxis has been integrated into the model that links human pheromones, neuroendocrinology, and behavior, Dobzahsky’s “light of evolution” (1973) can be seen shining on the path that links a single nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated amino acid substitution to differences in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to humans.

Simply put, the “light of evolution” is the link from the sun’s biological energy and ecological variation to ecological adaptation.

Amino acids do not evolve, which suggests all species must ecologically adapt. Nothing suggests that any species has evolved from any other species, except the use of the term “evolution.”

Use of the term “evolution” suggests it occurs over-the-weekend in the context of the “re-evolved” bacterial flagellum.

See also: Pheromones in the life of insects

With respect to pheromones, the question often arises if pheromones—which are known from unicellular yeast cells up to all classes of animals—do exist for humans too. This question is still under discussion with many hints that pheromones are important for humans also, mainly in a sociosexual context (Hatt 2004; Wysocki and Preti 2004; Shepherd 2006). After an early rather vague discussion in the book of Agosta (1992) more recent reviews (Kohl et al. 2001; Grammer et al. 2005; Fink and Sövegjarto 2006) present different aspects of their origin, detection and effects.

My comment: The questions about whether human pheromones exist can be answered in the context of what is currently known about:

Common Sense Design Principles and the Real World


They claimed that these “genes” were the product of evolution from previously non-coding, untranscribed DNA. They argued that some of the “genes” are made into proteins and perhaps may be subject to selection, meaning that they are evolving.

My comment: The claim that genes evolved has never made sense to any serious scientist I know.

See: Epigenetic trap

My comment: I have repeatedly cited Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction and other works that link atoms to ecosystems via the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to humans.

No matter how many times serious scientists present their works in the context of Common Sense Design Principles and the Real World, teleophobic theorists continue to make unsubstantiated claims about things that automagically “evolve.”

The claim that olfactory receptor genes “evolve” insults the intelligence of any intelligent person who has ever lived.

The claim that olfactory receptor genes “evolve”makes no sense. Anyone who accepts claims about evolution that make no sense is not the person you want teaching your children to believe in ridiculous theories.


Add a Comment

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