Cellular mechanisms for integral feedback in visually guided behavior
My comment: Perhaps they will link these “visually driven behaviors” to other behaviors that are driven by food odors and pheromones. This would reveal that conserved molecular mechanisms link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man. Alternatively, they could simply claim that humans are primarily visual creatures, such as birds, but not dogs et al.
That claim might confuse people, but who cares? It’s only a theory. No experimental evidence support any model of visually driven behavior, and no biological facts about conserved molecular mechanisms need to be included in theories about visually-driven behaviors. There is no need to link visual input to DNA or anything else.
In a response to comments on
A Challenge to the Supremacy of DNA as the Genetic Material
-
James V. Kohl says:
… Works by Lenski and Dunham are, of course, examples of how evidence from population genetics has confused evolutionary theorists who equate it with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect reported by serious scientists.
Many of the academics have not updated their knowledge base by reading articles on yeasts, like “Signaling Crosstalk: Integrating Nutrient Availability and Sex” https://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sigtrans;6/291/pe28
Many theorists have not yet grasped the unicellular nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction connection to “Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16290036 …
March 31, 2014
Two days later I read about a model of cell type differentiation that makes no mention of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell types and posits that cancers evolve via one inherited or acquired mutation that is effected by a second mutation.
See: Possible explanation for human diseases caused by defective ribosomes
The senior author states: “Our yeast work has established a new paradigm that we are now translating to humans.”
In the first sentence, this is what the report implies: “Ribosomes are essential for life, generating all of the proteins required for cells to grow. Mutations in some of the proteins that make ribosomes cause disorders…”
I’ll paraphrase that, since they are trying to translate it to humans:
1) Ribosomes… [make] / generat[e]… all of the proteins required for cells to grow.
2) Mutations in some of the proteins that make ribosomes cause disorders…”
Ribosomes make all the proteins but mutations in the proteins that make ribosomes appears to be a misrepresentation of biologically based cause and effect. It’s a circular argument: ribosomes make proteins but mutations in proteins make ribosomes. That claim ignores the fact that nutrient uptake is required for cell growth and for differentiation of cell types in yeasts and every other organism on the planet.
Eliminating nutrient uptake from protein biosynthesis excludes control of protein biosynthesis that occurs via protein degradation into chemical signals like pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes, such as yeasts, to man.
James V. Kohl detailedl how quantized energy-dependent microRNA biogenesis links the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction to biophysically constrained viral latency and healthy longevity. Links from what organisms eat to the enzyme-dependent metabolism of food also link metabolic networks to microRNA-mediated genetic networks in the context of RNA interference. Drug therapies alter RNA interference by altering cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species. For comparison, during the past 26 years, Kohl has detailed how the chemistry of protein folding is biophysically constrained at every level of biological organization by conserved molecular mechanisms.