A relatively young branch of science called epigenetics

Epigenetics: genes, environment and the generation game

New research claims that environmental factors affect not just an individual’s genes but those of their offspring too. Diabetes, obesity – even certain phobias – may all be influenced by the behaviour of our forebears

by Angela Saini, The Observer,

Excerpt 1): “…she was kept on a near-starvation diet when she was close to giving birth.”

Excerpt 2: with my emphasis): This puzzling study, published last month, echoes many performed on mice, worms and plants in the past few years in the name of a relatively young branch of science called epigenetics. In seeking to answer that eternal question of nature versus nurture – does our upbringing shape us or do our genes? – this field has radically introduced a mysterious third element into the mix: the life experience of previous generations.

My comment: What is currently known about RNA-mediated events pits evolutionary theory against biologically-based facts in the context of nature versus nurture and “…. the life experience of previous generations. For example, theorists have never described an evolutionary event, which suggests the biological facts about RNA-mediated events that we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article should not have been largely ignored for nearly two decades.

In the context of explaining how the epigenetic landscape (nurture) is linked to the physical landscape of DNA (nature) in different species, our section on molecular epigenetics contains the following information with citations to the pertinent works.

“Molecular epigenetics
Yet another kind of epigenetic imprinting occurs in species as diverse as yeast, Drosophila, mice, and humans and is based upon small DNA-binding proteins called “chromo domain” proteins, e.g., polycomb. These proteins affect chromatin structure, often in telomeric regions, and thereby affect transcription and silencing of various genes. Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex differences may arise from alternative splicings of otherwise identical genes.”

Others have since detailed how these RNA-mediated events link cell type differentiation of all cells in all individuals of all species to differences in their morphology and behavior. Biologically-based cause and effect are consistently linked from biophysically-constrained nutrient-dependent thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis to the metabolism of nutrients. The metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones controls the physiology of reproduction, which links nutrient uptake to behavior via conserved molecular mechanisms. Without biophysically-constrained biologically-based cause and effect that links epigenetic effects to nutrient-dependent ecologically-adapted behavior, there could be no explanation of how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations. Serious scientists would be forced to portray cause and effect in terms that link mutations and natural selection to the evolutionary events associated with biodiversity. The problem for serious scientists is that no evolutionary events have ever been associated with biodiversity. Instead, all the associations made by evolutionary theorists are based on population genetics. Simply put, population geneticists claimed that because they observed differences in the morphology of different species, the species must have somehow evolved via mutations and natural selection.

Currently, only scientists who have been taught to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics continue to frame their experimental evidence in terms that were beginning to fall out of favor in 1996. However, more scientists in the United States of America appear to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense compared to scientists in Israel. The reason for this recently became clear via comments on the decision to begin teaching the theory of evolution in Israeli middle-schools.. “…learning about evolution is not the primary function of the decision, but rather to use it as a building block for students to learn more about their ecology.” A few weeks later, this article was published in the prestigious journal Cell: Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans.

A series of events has continued to refute the entirety of any theories about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity. The refutations pit theories about unknown evolutionary events against experimental evidence of RNA-mediated events.

What does this mean to evolutionary theorists who continue to tout their ridiculous theories? I think the principle aim of the Oded Rechavi lab summarizes what has happened to evolutionary theory since 1996: “Our principle aim in the lab is to attack scientific dogmas. Mainly, we aim to use powerful genetic tools to discover novel biological principles by which RNA affects formation and inheritance of complex traits.” That claim went missing in September 2014. Perhaps it drew unwanted attention to the lab. No matter, the short perspective: RNA and dynamic nuclear organization helped to clarify the fact that “…the interactions between pre-mRNA and proteins fine-tune alternative splicing in a manner that can gradually create new protein functionalities without the need to create additional genes and without affecting existing proteins [4-6].” Clearly, the focus on RNA-mediated events and amino acid substitutions that stabilize DNA in organized genomes will lead to a future in which no serious scientist reports results in terms of mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity.

What do you think will happen to the claims of evolutionary theorists by the end of this year, or by the end of this decade? Now that others have learned about RNA-mediated events, I predict that evolutionary theory will be viewed only in the context of what Dobzhansky wrote 50 years ago: “…the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!

For additional information on the power of RNA-mediated events, which can be compared to whatever claims may continue to be made by evolutionary theorists, see this report on research. It …—showed that millions of noncoding RNA molecules from the previous generation direct this undertaking by marking and sorting the DNA pieces in the correct order.

About James V. Kohl 1308 Articles
James Vaughn Kohl was the first to accurately conceptualize human pheromones, and began presenting his findings to the scientific community in 1992. He continues to present to, and publish for, diverse scientific and lay audiences, while constantly monitoring the scientific presses for new information that is relevant to the development of his initial and ongoing conceptualization of human pheromones. Recently, Kohl integrated scientific evidence that pinpoints the evolved neurophysiological mechanism that links olfactory/pheromonal input to genes in hormone-secreting cells of tissue in a specific area of the brain that is primarily involved in the sensory integration of olfactory and visual input, and in the development of human sexual preferences. His award-winning 2007 article/book chapter on multisensory integration: The Mind’s Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences followed an award winning 2001 publication: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology, which was coauthored by disinguished researchers from Vienna. Rarely do researchers win awards in multiple disciplines, but Kohl’s 2001 award was for neuroscience, and his 2007 “Reiss Theory” award was for social science. Kohl has worked as a medical laboratory scientist since 1974, and he has devoted more than twenty-five years to researching the relationship between the sense of smell and the development of human sexual preferences. Unlike many researchers who work with non-human subjects, medical laboratory scientists use the latest technology from many scientific disciplines to perform a variety of specialized diagnostic medical testing on people. James V. Kohl is certified with: * American Society for Clinical Pathology * American Medical Technologists James V. Kohl is a member of: * Society for Neuroscience * Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology * Association for Chemoreception Sciences * Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality * International Society for Human Ethology * American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science * Mensa, the international high IQ society