Conclusion: Attempts by biologically uninformed science journalists to pin down what is known about the links from ecological variation to ecological adaptation have caused Carl Zimmer to claim “We need a new definition of what heredity is…”
If the brain is inherently Bayesian, then behavior should show the signatures of Bayesian computation from an early stage in life. Children should integrate probabilistic information from prior and likelihood distributions to reach decisions and should be as statistically efficient as adults, when individual reliabilities are taken into account.
Bayesian behavior simply represents optimal behavior under uncertainty, and there are ways of generating optimal behavior that do not explicitly implement Bayesian computation (Mandt, Hoffman, & Blei, 2017; Verstynen & Sabes, 2012; Weisswange, Rothkopf, Rodemann, & Triesch, 2011). Therefore, previous research has not fully established whether the neural code is inherently Bayesian.
When sensorimotor estimation is linked to epigenetically-effected experience-dependent learning and memory, serious scientists report findings like this:
Neural codes exemplify natural selection for food energy-dependent codon optimality via RNA-mediated DNA repair.
Pseudoscientists and other biologically uninformed theorists are stuck with emergence and evolution.
The article was reviewed by Koonin, Lynch, and Scott William Roy.
Collectively, the reviewers allowed the horrid misrepresentation of biophysically constrained viral latency to be placed into the context of food energy-dependent alternative splicings via use of the term nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ).
See for comparison, the level of skills and expertise attributed to Scott William Roy in the context of alternative splicings.
See also our section on molecular epigenetics from our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review of food energy-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation:
Yet another kind of epigenetic imprinting occurs in species as diverse as yeast, Drosophila, mice, and humans and is based upon small DNA-binding proteins called “chromo domain” proteins, e.g., polycomb. These proteins affect chromatin structure, often in telomeric regions, and thereby affect transcription and silencing of various genes …. Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans…. That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex differences may arise from alternative splicings of otherwise identical genes.
A potential ramification of epigenetic imprinting and alternative splicing may be occurring in Xq28, a chromosomal region implicated in homosexual orientation…
Most of our colleagues refuse to accept the facts about alternative splicings of pre-mRNAs, which are now called microRNAs. The facts that link energy-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction and to homosexual orientiation in humans conflict with theories of evolution.
See for comparison: How did we get to be human?
Carl Zimmer places everything known to serious scientists about light-activated microRNA biogenesis and alternative splicings of pre-mRNAs/microRNAs back into the context of the fossil record and his ridiculous claims in She has her mother’s laugh.
We say we inherit genes from our ancestors–using a word that once referred to kingdoms and estates–but we inherit other things that matter as much or more to our lives, from microbes to technologies we use to make life more comfortable. We need a new definition of what heredity is…
If a new definition of heredity is needed, why is he still touting evidence from the fossil record of dead things that did not get to be human?
Others have also failed to link sudden death due to drowning and diffuse pulmonary ossification to the fossil record via microRNA mediated calcification.
… the diffuse pulmonary ossification was probably related to the sudden death with concomitant myocardial hypertrophy.
Neo-Darwinian pseudosciefic nonsense falls outside the context of Darwin’s “conditions of life.” Heredity is not possible when drowning causes dead ancestors to become part of the fossil record.
I suspect that death by drowning was the reason I had to remove the link to the omics online publication to tweet this response:
Others failed to link diffuse pulmonary ossification from sudden death due to drowning to calicification and the fossil record via microRNA mediated calcification https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28319142
Facebook fake news reports, biased reporting, and censorship have now been linked to promotion of the viral apocaplyse in the context of cooperation among the leaders of the Republic of the United States, North Korea, and scientific creationists from the Republic of Korea.
Twitter censorship of the facts that refute theistic evolution in the context of the Kording lab’s latest report, could lead to the death of us all, or perhaps only 90% of the world’s populations if what is known about the viral hecatomb is true.
Carl Zimmer wrote his most recent essay for the 40th anniversary of New York Times Science. He pretends to link what is known about evolution to “…how we became human—on a planet crowded with lots of mysterious relatives of humans.”
All serious scientists know we are still living with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans who interbred because we are all examples of sympatric speciation. Indeed, Carl Zimmer claims we are:
“Still mosaics, after all this time.”
It is disingenuous for him to continue to put sympatric speciation back into the context of the fossil record.
See for comparison: Living with the Neanderthals (2003)
Bear does an admirable job of trying to square religious beliefs and scientific reason when functional magnetic resonance imaging is used to see what a revelation looks like. And he never takes us quite to the brink of a miracle, stating emphatically in an epilogue that he isn’t advocating special creation or God-directed evolution. In short, he reminds us that the mystic experiences that people have are neurological events as real as any other perception, and suggests that they might just be manifestations of a higher organic (as opposed to spiritual) existence.
See also: The Darwin Code
Charles Darwin was wise enough not to pin down what he could not see or know, and so, he did not overly pontificate on how the changeability of nature was encoded, and how that code could be altered in its details.
Attempts by biologically uninformed science journalists to pin down what is known about the links from ecological variation to ecological adaptation have caused Carl Zimmer to claim “We need a new definition of what heredity is…”