I use definitions to describe differences in behavior. I do not define biologically-based facts in attempts to make the definitions fit into the context of ridiculous theories about the development of behavior. I am not an idiot. An idiot is “…someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way…. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise)…. the terms “idiot” and “idiocy” describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed).”
Serious scientists may not know enough about other specialities to link biologically-based cause and effect across disciplines, but they are typically willing to learn. Idiots are too foolish to recognize that they need to learn about biologically-based cause and effect in the context of physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms to avoid stupid utterances. For examples of stupid utterances, see the discussion of how species diverge.
For intelligent discussion of how species diverge see the comments on: Understanding and accounting for relational context is critical for social neuroscience
“…top-down causation is a key factor not just in the way the brain works but in broader contexts in biology and even physics.” — George F. R. Ellis
See also the comments by What does Ebola actually do?
This citation and quote will help to distinguish idiots from serious scientists:
Quote: “…a single intergenic lncRNA controls the activity and methylation of genomically distal regulatory elements to modulate large-scale transcriptional programmes.”
An idiot would place the nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated regulation of cell type differentiation into the context of mutations and/or natural selection. The idiot would try to make it appear that changes to DNA automagically lead to morphological and behavioral diversity manifested in the context of what they have been taught to believe is evolution.
A serious scientist would attempt to link top-down causation to bottom-up ecological variation. For example, serious scientists look for links between the epigenetic landscape and the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man. They include requirements for ecological adaptation, which is manifested in increasing complexity.
Nutrient uptake is the first requirement and metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction is the second requirement. Taken together, the two requirements are manifested in the diversity of morphological and behavioral phenotypes. Focus on the physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation eliminates consideration of beneficial mutations that pseudoscientists think somehow link perturbed protein folding to increased organismal complexity. For comparison, nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions stabilize protein folding, which is required for RNA-mediated regulation of cell type differentiation.
In mammals, “The species-specific adaptation of milk to the nutritional requirements of the neonate may involve multiple processes, including the gain and loss of genes encoding the proteins, changes in expression levels of the proteins, and changes in composition of the proteins themselves.”
The fact that these species-specific adaptations are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in the context of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions has been obscured by the claims of wiki-idiots who tout theories about mutations that somehow link perturbed protein folding from ecological variation to nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations in marine and terrestrial mammals. Note, however, this wiki-idiot fact:“None of the mutations so far identified have been shown to be causal for the lactase persistence allele, and it is thought that there are several more yet to be discovered.” No mutations have been found that link biologically-based cause and effect to nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation and cell type differentiation via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in all mammals.
The idea that more mutations will be discovered and that they will be linked to lactase persistence in some human populations, but not others, is one that attests to the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics. Population geneticists invented neo-Darwinism and made Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ appear to depend on mutations instead of nutrient uptake and pheromone-controlled reproduction.
[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. 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…. No, it wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact. — Mazur (2014)
Clearly, many evolutionary biologists are among the other pseudoscientists who think mutations somehow lead to increasing organismal complexity. Even when all experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect links amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all species, pseudoscientists continue their efforts to find mutations linked to lactase persistence.
Excerpt: “As different proteins contain distinct proportions of amino acids, differences in the protein composition among tissue types can yield dissimilar isotopic compositions irrespective of changes in diet”
Cited in Foote et al., (2013): “The differences in amino acid composition among different tissues can lead to large differences in trophic discrimination .”
How can anyone miss the obvious link to terrestrial mammals from RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation in marine mammals? It has been reported since 1999 in a series of published works by many different authors. For example: John T. Caprio of Louisiana State University stated that the ability to identify molecules floating in the air is an adaptation of the original mechanism that enabled identification of amino acid-like chemicals soluble in water. See: How The Nose Knows: Research On Smell Boosted.
Why are evolutionary theorists only now beginning to tell others about the importance of social behavior? See: Darwin’s forgotten idea: The social essence of sexual selection How could they not realize that Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man, which link social odors called pheromones from natural selection of food to sexual selection and species diversity?
See also: RNA-based Sex Determination?