Excerpt: “…ovulatory shifts are intriguing because they represent an original prediction of evolutionary theory, but are not predicted by non-evolutionary theoretical frameworks.”
My comment: The shifts do not represent an original prediction of evolutionary theory. Ovulation does not occur in reproductively immature women or in women who are starving to death. Those are biological facts. The shifts are controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that cause the gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH)-modulated surge of luteinizing hormone (LH) in women, which is accompanied by an increased surge in LH and testosterone (T) in reproductively mature human males and rhesus monkey males.
Evolutionary theorists rarely comment on biological facts that link ecological variation in one species to hormones that effect ecological adaptations by affecting behavior in other species via conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation. However, Dobzhansky (1973) mentioned the role of cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in his oft-cited review Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. “…the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla.” There are some similarities and some differences in morphology and behavioral phenotypes of primates. See for primate similarities in the epigenetic effects of pheromones on hormones that affect behavior:
Excerpt: “What is the significance of this periodic fluctuation in the male’s T? Several possibilities can be suggested: (1) the husband’s testosterone level has become entrained to the wife’s menstrual cycle reflecting the pair bonding of the two partners, or (2) a form of communication exists between the two partners whereby the female informs the male that she has ovulated and he responds, like the dominant rhesus monkey, with an increase in his testosterone level facilitating his entire sexual response cycle. These two hypotheses are not necessarily antithetical; in fact, they may be highly compatible in that the first possibility provides a mechanism to reenforce the couple’s pair bonding, and the second reenforces the couple’s reproductive capacity.” (p. 108)
My comment: The mechanism is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled by the epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones on sex differences in cell types. The mechanism is first manifested in the sex differences in cell types of yeasts, but cell type differentiation is a characteristic of all cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems or all organisms. In primates, the mechanism that links sex differences in cell types to behavior is clearly a hormone-organized and hormone-activated ecological adaptation that links nutrient uptake and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
Most evolutionary theorists and human ethologists still claim that human pheromones do not exist and they do not acknowledge the fact that human pheromones epigenetically effect the hormones that affect ovulatory shifts in women’s behaviors. They prefer to call food odors and the nutrient-dependent pheromones that are produced in all species, something else (i.e., anything else) when the pheromones effect the hormones that affect human behavior.
Ask whether the integration of epigentically-effected hormone organized and hormone-activated behavior was predicted by evolutionary theory or by the conserved molecular mechanisms that link the epigenetic landscape to the nutrient-dependent physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction. Then ask others why they are still calling human pheromones anything but pheromones. See for examples:
ISHE CONFERENCES, XXII BIENNIAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN ETHOLOGY BELEM/BRASIL
The scented ape: communication, perception and application “humans emit numerous aromatic compounds”
Situated Communication – Scented Environments “environmental scents can lead to” “odorous molecules might have”
Elisabeth Oberzaucher, Susanne F. Schmehl
The perfume-body odour complex: An insightful model for culture-gene coevolution? ” biologically evolved chemical signalling”
Jan Havlíček, S. Craig Roberts
Androstenes in human axillary odour reveal mate availability, not mate quality “the family of 16-androstene compounds”
S Craig Roberts, Jan Havlíček
Perception of emotion-related body odours in humans (SFA) “emotion-related body odours”
Jitka Fialova, Jan Havlíček
Does personality smell? An overview (LMA) “natural body odor samples”
Does the odor of the Maillard reaction lure men to the barbecue? (SFA) Food odors are called: “typical volatile compounds”
Ina Maria Rennisch, Julia Ramesmayer, Anna Schaman, Karl Grammer
Human ethologists like Karl Grammer are among the worst of the evolutionary theorists, who Dobzhansky (1964) claimed were akin to bird-watchers and butterfly-collectors. “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!” They are the reason that others unknowingly report things such as this: Excerpt: “…ovulatory shifts are intriguing because they represent an original prediction of evolutionary theory, but are not predicted by non-evolutionary theoretical frameworks.” Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations are predicted in all species via what is known by serious scientists about epigenetic cause and effect. What is known refutes the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists and human etholgists. See for example my most recent reviews:
Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.