Thanks to Paul Harrington for alerting me to this. “The Chemical Basis of Pharmacology”
Excerpt: “It is almost perplexing that the chemical view of pharmacology, which has little basis in physical or biological theory, works as well as it does to relate targets and discover drugs. Conversely, the molecular biology view, representing our best understanding of biology, has curious gaps in pharmacological organization and a checkered career in drug discovery.”
My comment: Synthesized exotic scents and pharmaceuticals are manufactured by co-opting the Unfolded Protein Response of yeasts, which links the nutrient-dependent thermodynamics of pheromone-controlled organism-level thermoregulation in species from microbes to man. This means evolutionary theorists will eventually be forced by what is known about physics and chemistry to accept the fact that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
The only question now is how long it will take them to abandon the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection because it has no explanatory power in the context of molecular epigenetics/the chemical basis of pharmacology. The longer it takes, however, the angrier some people might be when they learn how much mutations theory has retarded medical progress. Academic suppression of current information cannot continue indefinitely, nonetheless.
I mentioned this before:
The moderator/owner of the evolutionary psychology group previously wrote: That you languish in the opinion/discussion forum is, by far, the biggest admission of the weakness of your overall position. See also the comments by Robert Karl Stonjek here: Re: A serious scientist would do WHAT?
Since then, my position as a serious scientist with a publication history dating back to 1995 has been strengthened by my publication of Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model and publication by Chelo et al of a refutation of mutation-driven evolution.
I was about to provide examples to show the difference between 1) what a spontaneous change in a single base pair does, and 2) what a nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled change in single base pair does. But I’ve been eliminated from participation and cannot tell the group anything further about the differences between their ridiculous theories and biological facts. The group members are complaining too much.
Similarly, the moderator of ISHE’s human ethology group continues to block my posts, but I wonder what Jay Feierman and Robert Stonjek think they are accomplishing by preventing my participation. The end result will be the same. Theorist will be angry that their ridiculous theories have been exposed to public ridicule, people will be less trusting of social scientists, especially those who know nothing about social odors called pheromones, and Feierman will continue to tout random mutations theory as if it ever made sense in the first place. It didn’t, and never will.
Excerpt: “Selection then acts on this standing genetic variation producing adaptations, and hence the environment acts merely as a sieve for phenotypes.
Nevertheless, there is now ample evidence showing that the environment can also act as a phenotypic inducer so that a single genotype is often capable of expressing alternative appropriate phenotypes in response to different environments [7–9]. This phenotypic plasticity is the consequence of environmentally induced changes in gene expression .”
My comment: In my model, nutrients and pheromones cause the environmentally induced changes in gene expression. That fact has not changed since Darwin first expressed it in the context of his conditions of life, which are obviously now known to be nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.