In my International Society for Human Ethology (ISHE) Summer Institute poster presentation earlier this month, I offered examples of nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions in an attempt to clarify the involvement of seemingly futile thermodynamic control of intracellular and intermolecular interactions, which result in de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. These examples make it clearer that thermodynamically controlled cycles of RNA transcription and protein degradation are responsible for organism-level changes in pheromone production, which enable accelerated changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA (miRNA/mRNA) balance and thermoregulation of controlled nutrient-dependent adaptive evolution.
If I was the only one suggesting the overwhelming importance the miRNA/mRNA balance to adaptive evolution, I could better understand skepticism or why I’m being ignored, denigrated, and labeled (e.g., a creationist). However, I am not the only one who is making such claims.
For example, see: What is MicroRNA?
Excerpt: “Comparing miRNAs between species can even be used to delineate molecular evolutionary history on the basis that the complexity of an organisms phenotype may reflect that of the microRNA found in the genotype.”
Excerpt: “Due to their abundant presence and far-reaching potential, miRNAs have all sorts of functions in physiology, from cell differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis to the endocrine system, haematopoiesis, fat metabolism, limb morphogenesis. They display different expression profiles from tissue to tissue, reflecting the diversity in cellular phenotypes and as such suggest a role in tissue differentiation and maintenance.”
My comment: Even if it was not likely that species differences in miRNAs are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, there would be no scientific evidence to support mutation-driven evolution. Even if Zhang et al., (2012) did not provide “…a novel role of miRNAs as the bridge between our diet and gene expression through post-transcriptional silencing of mRNA translation…” and evidence of a new mechanism by which our environment may alter our phenotype, evolutionary theorists could not continue to tout theory while everyone else becomes aware of the need to incorporate the role of miRNAs and physiology into models of adaptive evolution.
So, what are you waiting for that might help you make scientific progress or help you to understand why individual differences and species-wide differences exist in species from microbes to man that appear to be nutrient-dependent? Do you think that the metabolism of nutrients to pheromones does not control reproduction in species from microbes to man?
Speak up! Be one of the first, not the last, to recognize the scientific progress of the last decade and of at least four more decades before that. Make Darwin proud! He was, after all, the first to put ‘conditions of life’ that we know are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled before natural selection that he knew somehow occurred for observable phenotypes. Stop touting the bastardization of his theory! He never knew anything about mutation-driven evolution, and if he had he would almost undoubtedly find that associated theories lack explanatory power compared to what is neuroscientifically known today.
ISHE talk Abstract submission (300 words). Only my poster was accepted for presentation.
The theory that mutations of existing genetic material are sources of pleiotropy and adaptation can now be replaced with an accurate representation of how symbionts in members of ecological communities enable bottom-up nutrient-dependent epigenesis and top-down pheromone-controlled epistasis during adaptive evolution (Duron & Hurst, 2013; Kohl, 2012). Nutrient-dependent single amino acid substitutions and de novo protein biosynthesis exemplify the involvement of seemingly futile thermodynamic control of intracellular and intermolecular interactions in microbes, which results in non-random stochastic gene expression. Cycles of RNA transcription and degradation (Yap & Makeyev, 2013) also cause changes in pheromone-controlled reproduction, which enables accelerated changes in nutrient-dependent adaptive evolution controlled by the microRNA/messenger RNA (miRNA/mRNA) balance (see for review Meunier et al., 2013). Environmental cues, like those that signal the availability of glucose, cause changes in the miRNA/mRNA balance that enable the epigenetic landscape to become the physical landscape of DNA and gene expression during developmental transitions required for successful nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction in species from microbes (Park et al., 2010) to man (Jobe, McQuate, & Zhao, 2012). Using examples, I extend the molecular mechanisms of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation across the continuum of adaptive evolution. A mouse model (Kamberov et al., 2013) links single amino acid substitutions and de novo protein biosynthesis to invertebrate pheromone production (Lassance et al., 2013) and replaces mutations theory, which has been classically misrepresented in reports on arthropods, like the peppered moth (Cook & Saccheri, 2013). In this report on non-random ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction, the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input in arthropods also enables selection for phenotype in a human population that arose during ~ 30,000 years (Grossman et al., 2013). Darwin’s ‘conditions of existence’ and Tinbergen’s ‘survival value’ are revisited in the context of ‘genes of large effect’ and the biology of behavior.