Discussion on the closed group Applied Evolutionary Psychology includes my comments on several other reports, beginning with:
My comments on:
New research points to key properties of transfer RNA molecules and amino acids that may have supported the origin of life on Earth.
I wrote: Thanks for providing yet another reason to reject evolutionary psychology. Acceptance of RNA-mediated links to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera is not optional. They link metabolic networks to genetic networks, which is required.
My comment to The Scientist:
Simultaneous emergence was suggested by Matti Pitkanen who pirated my model of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated cell type differentiation and claimed that “Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously.”
Serious scientists now appear to have discovered the link from the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids to the de novo creation of receptors that link RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of genera via the nutrient-dependent chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding.
The nutrient-dependent physiology of metabolic networks and genetic networks link reproduction to fixation of the amino acid substitutions, which enables all extant biophysically constrained biodiversity, which is exemplified in differences in morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
Claims of simultaneous emergence should be supported by experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect, or abandoned along with claims of Mutation-Driven Evolution, like this one: “…genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world.” (p. 199)
For comparison, see: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model, which was published on the same day as Nei’s textbook.
Mathematical and computational approaches are making strides in understanding how life might have emerged and organized itself from the basic chemistry of early Earth.
I wrote: Continuing to accept theory when facts about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated protein folding attest to how ecological variation is epigenetically linked to ecologically adaptation is continuing to accept the pseudoscientific nonsense of the population geneticists who invented neo-Darwinism.
My comment to The Scientist:
Put some E. coli in a dish with appropriate nutrients, and after a few days the dish will be teeming with new bacterial offspring.
My comment: Put some genetically altered P. fluorescens in a dish and leave them without their flagella over-the-weekend. Forget to remove them from the incubator and find they have “re-evolved” their flagella.
See: Evolutionary Rewiring. Try to convince serious scientists that what “re-evolved” exemplies how autocatalycic processes link ecological variation to ecological adaptations via mutations that perturb the thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation.
The thermodynamic cycles link the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all genera.
If you can successfully link mutations and evolution, you can teach neo-Darwinian theory to unsuspecting students who may think you are teaching them more about biodiversity than they might otherwise have learned if they knew: “[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. Evolution was defined as “changes in gene frequencies in natural populations.” The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another…. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”
These and other results suggest that genetic coding of 3D protein structures evolved in distinct stages, based initially on the size of the amino acid and later on its compatibility with globular folding in water.
My comment: Sutherland’s group already linked the light-induced de novo creation of the smallest amino acid, glycine and what may appear to be the simultaneous de novo creation of three other amino acids.
My comment: The de novo creation of the first amino acid does not appear to have been a random event. Linking the light-induced de novo creation of glycine to globular folding in water, appears to link the speed of light, which slows on contact with water, to the de novo creation of the first amino acid and the creation of 19 others. This is consistent with what has been portrayed in the context of a giant biogeochemical membrane.
See: Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean
The sunlit surface layer of the world’s oceans functions as a giant biogeochemical membrane between the atmosphere and the ocean interior (1).
My comment: It is difficult to not link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids and to RNA-directed DNA methylation, which links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to the creation of all cell type differences in all cell types of all individuals of all genera via their physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction.
The regulation of gene expression by non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) has become a new paradigm in biology.
My comment: The maps are linked from nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in bacteria to humans. Evolutionary theorists recently tried to link “re-evolution” of the bacterial flagellum via mutations and evolution, which occurred in four days.
In the context of evolution in four days I admitted that I do not understand the abstractions and the assumptions made about the ability of de Vries definition of “mutation” to link biologically-based cause and effect.
I wrote: I’m a retired medical laboratory scientist who was never taught to believe in neo-Darwinism, which I still find unbelievable in the context of everything currently know about physics, chemistry, and molecular mechanisms. If the article clarified that evolutionary psychology was based on abstractions instead of what is known about ecological variation and ecological adaptations, I would not have commented.
But, as soon as someone misrepresents cause and effect, I think it benefits us both to clarify the difference between theory and biology. Anyone who wants to link theory to differences in behavior is welcome to continue doing so. However, serious scientists are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease because pseudoscientists have continued to claim that beneficial mutations can be linked to the evolution of increasing organismal complexity AND to pathology.
I added: Those who have children may also want to see: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults
My comment: Without telling you that Va158Met is an amino acid substitution, they link it to cell type differentiation during life history transitions, which occur via the conserved molecular mechanisms of our 1996 model, which was linked to insects (2000) and to life history transitions in the honeybee model organism in 2005.
On a lighter note: If you think the behavior of some children can be linked via abstractions to the behavior of other species, you may want to consider how the immune systems links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man. Signature Patterns of MHC Diversity in Three Gombe Communities of Wild Chimpanzees Reflect Fitness in Reproduction and Immune Defense against SIVcpz
Well-illustrated by this study is how single events of recombination between MHC-B alleles can generate groups of MHC-B subtypes that offer different degrees of protection and susceptibility against an infecting pathogen. In both chimpanzees and humans, this is the major mechanism by which useful new variants are formed [20,66,71,72]. Reflecting the dynamic nature of the MHC-B gene, the majority of Patr-B alleles are specific to one subspecies of chimpanzee. It will therefore be of great interest to study Patr-B and other MHC genes in other subspecies of chimpanzee, as well in the second Pan species, the bonobo.
Re: “….inherited according to mendelian laws….” They were not part of Darwin’s theory.
My comment: See also: R2d2 beats Mendel: Scientists find selfish gene that breaks long-held law of inheritance
Mendel’s century-old “law of segregation,” which states that you have an equal probability of inheriting each of two copies of every gene from both parents is not a law of biology. Female mice pass on one copy of the R2d2 gene more frequently than the other copy. Cause and effect is nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated, which means that you can’t get to an inherited “analytic gene” or anything else without explaining what you are trying to get to in the context of what serious scientists know about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. But, let’s pretend that is not related to Glenn Geher’s post. Evolutionary psychology should be like magic.
I think if others follow the Psychology Today comments, they will be more likely to see that people aren’t buying into the pseudoscientific nonsense. Perhaps that is because of the links from nutritional epigenetics to pharmacogenomics that show how a single amino acid substitution can alter the response to medications used to treat behavioral disorders and disorders of cell type differentiation, like cancer.
Precision medicine is eliminating what’s now being taught as evolutionary medicine because serious scientists know the difference between mutations that perturb protein folding and amino acid substitutions that stabilize it. Test panels include testing for the Val158Met substitution, which is important to proper prescription medicine in ADHD and other developmental disorders linked to life history transitions via epigenetics, not by “analytic genes.”