Thanks to Jon Lieff for alerting me to this:
Bacteria may allow animals to send quick, voluminous messages
Excerpt: “The diversity, however, still consistently varies between hyena species, and with sex and reproductive state among spotted hyenas…”
This diversity exemplifies “Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution” as clearly as does the diversity of social odors called pheromones in species from microbes to man (including birds — not the mention of Danielle Whittaker’s work).What’s amazing is that after publishing my model of adaptive evolution earlier this year, based on 3 decades of research…,
…we still see people touting theories like snake-centric evolution of the human brain.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2013-11-bacteria-animals-quick-voluminous-messages.html#jCp
My comment:
This diversity exemplifies “Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution” as clearly as does the diversity of social odors called pheromones in species from microbes to man (including birds).
Obviously, people are beginning to grasp the across-species significance of the fact that nutrients metabolize to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of successful reproduction in all species.
At the same time, however, we see theorists touting concepts like snake-centric evolution of the human brain based on adaptive evolution of visual acuity and specificity when there is no experimental evidence of cause and effect that suggests such things.We also have the moderator of the International Society for Human Ethology’s yahoo group, blocking my posts to the group. Jay Feierman believes that Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts.
He would rather everyone believe that nonsense, so he will not post anything that directly challenges his beliefs. Three of the posts that he blocked since Nov 5, are included here:
If random mutations are the substrates on which natural selection acts (e.g., via predation) on ecologial, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction across an evolutionary continuum that links the epigenetic “landscape” to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man, the human brain might have evolved to become more functional for snake detection via visual input. However, there is no experimental evidence that supports Haldane’s idea of mutation-initiated natural selection. Instead, all experimental evidence links olfactory/pheromonal input to nutrient uptake and the controlled physiology of reproduction. That fact probably explains why random mutations theory is now touted outside the context of mutation-driven evolution and natural selection. Indeed, few people are expected to believe in snake-centric evolution sans experimental evidence. They must therefore believe that random mutations cause evolution without natural selection via something that “just happens.” Indeed, the “it just happens”model is an alternative for comparison to my model, because “Scientists are exploring how organisms can evolve elaborate structures without Darwinian selection.”— Carl Zimmer
If you can help others to learn this information without laughing hysterically, please feel free to attempt to do so. If others think you are laughing at them, they may not listen.
2) Food for Thought: Hormonal, Experiential, and Neural Influences on Feeding and Obesity “Epigenetic mechanisms (i.e., DNA methylation, histone modifications, microRNAs) have emerged as dynamic pathways through which environmental experiences can come to be integrated within our biology, leading to variation in neurobiology, behavior, and health (Jirtle and Skinner, 2007; Champagne, 2010). Thus, in contrast to the historical view that epigenetic variation is erased at the time of fertilization, there appears to be transmission of this variation to subsequent generations…”
Anyone still touting random mutations as if they ever could possibly have been the substrates on which directional natural selection acts, which they are not, has remained free to provide evidence for that assertion until now. They will now be forced to provide experimental evidence for that continued assertion. Clearly, that assertion is false; there has never been experimental evidence to support it; and claims made without experimental evidence are foolish claims.
3) See also: Bird odour predicts reproductive success. Scent marks in mammals and odours in birds predict higher reproductive success. Where did the idea come from that scent marking in mammals is the equivalent of visual cues in birds? The common factor that predicts reproductive success is scent not visual cues or auditory cues in any vertebrate or invertebrate species.
