In a discussion with Frank Mueller, he wrote: “For them to not seek to disprove your hypothesis … may be proof that your idea is not sparking any interest to them at all, that it is merely a re-worded view of other existing phenomenon.”
My response: Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled thermodynamically “fixed” new alleles enable more efficient organism-level thermoregulation. That fact, which is not a hypothesis, and not my idea, may spark no interest because it makes evolutionary theorists with their ideas about scientifically unsubstantiated mutation-driven evolution seem to be horribly under-informed. The problem is akin to what the late Elaine Morgan had to say about her Aquatic Ape theory.
Simply put, there is no evidence that mutations ever become fixed in the organized genome of any species, and there is evidence that they are not ever fixed. Therefore, I think the lack of evidence for mutation-driven evolution is the reason evolutionary theorists do not want to even mention my extensively detailed model of epigenetic cause and effect in species from microbes to man.
What may be worse than being ignored by evolutionary theorists is when you denigrate the entirety of my works and my model of adaptive evolution by placing them into the context of a hypothesis or idea, like Haldane’s idea about mutations, which finally led to a scientific study that proved his idea was wrong (published September 13, 2013). At least others simply ignore my model, like they ignored the Aquatic Ape theory (AAT). They do not say my model is a hypothesis or an idea, and I did not ignore the AAT.
In my 2012 review, I wrote: “… the possible effects should not be ignored. That would be like ignoring the likely effects of docosahexaenoic acid in the maternal and postnatal diet on LH and on neuronal development in the mammalian brain (Lassek & Gaulin, 2011).” “Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid. It is found in cold water fatty fish…” There also are other aspects of Elaine Morgan’s ideas that fit well into my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution, and the importance of the epigenetic effects of nutrition has become increasingly clear. Any ideas about fixation of mutations should already have been dismissed as statistical misrepresentations that need not be proved to be wrong ideas by any experiment.
Furthermore, in the context of a recent article about the social life of genes, I read and heard in a recent audio interview: “A cell is a machine for turning experience into biology.” The more technical representation of the fact is “the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genome of species from microbes to man via the effects of olfactory/pheromonal input. It means that epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones turn the experience of the cell into biology.
If you liked the quote: “A cell is a machine for turning experience into biology,” you may be interested in learning about the conserved molecular mechanisms that enable cells to turn experiences into biology. In my review, I quoted Berreby (2011) who wrote: “… behavioral epigenetics has yet to connect all its levels of analysis. It needs, and doesn’t yet have, at least one slam-dunk demonstration of all the links in a chain from behavior to neural activity to gene expression and back out again.” I included slam-dunk examples from across species to demonstrate all the links.