Perception, physiology and odor rewards

Drosophila Life Span and Physiology Are Modulated by Sexual Perception and Reward

Science 1243339 Published online 29 November 2013

Abstract excerpt: “…healthy aging may be compromised when the expectations defined by sensory perception are discordant with ensuing experience.”

My comment to Science: Re (their conclusion): “…indirect genetic effects have the potential to be influential agents of natural selection (25), suggesting that expectation/reward imbalance may have broad effects on health and physiology in humans and may present a potent evolutionary force in nature.”

In my model, the evolutionary force is olfactory/pheromonal input. I have attempted to clarify the fact that “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans.” See, for example: “Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.

Problems with that representation involve a conflict with current theories of mutation-initiated natural selection, and its revision to mutation-driven evolution sans natural selection by removing biophysical constraints on adaptations to the sensory environment. Simply put, evolutionary theorists don’t seem to appreciate any challenges to their preferred theory, even as they change it to exclude physics. However, as we see here, there is substantially more evidence that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

We addressed pheromone-controlled reproduction in yeasts, insects, nematodes, and mammals in the context of molecular epigenetics linked to alternative splicings in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. The model of hormone-organization and hormone-activation of behavior was extended to invertebrates by Elekonich and Robinson (2000).

In one of my subsequent published works I added examples of how nutrient-dependent single amino acid substitutions (see Dobzhansky, 1973) contribute to pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution and I used the honeybee model organism to link yeasts, nematodes, insects, and other mammals to humans via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction. See for examples: “Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model” in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 2013, 3: 20553

The work reported here will facilitate comparisons of mutations theory to natural selection of nutrients and their metabolism to the pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man. That is what Darwin seemed to infer when he tried to establish the ‘conditions of life’ that must precede consideration of what might be naturally selected or sexually selected. We shall see what he meant.

Addendum: Adaptations to the sensory environment seem much more likely to be caused by the epigenetic effects of food odors and controlled by the epigenetic effects of pheromones. The idea of any link between perception, physiology, and odor rewards associated with mutation-driven evolution seems far-fetched. Perception is not required, for example, for the physiological changes that are epigenetically-effected and associated with affects on behavior in microbes, like bacteria and yeast, or even in nematodes at the advent of neurogenic niche construction. Like socio-cognitive niche construction, neurogenic niche construction is biophysically constrained. If it were not, there would be no such thing as nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled Mosaic Copy Number Variation in Human Neurons. Clearly, however, even if it is just conscious perception that’s to be discussed, the issue of consciousness in other animals arises as attempts are made to explain the unconscious affects of human pheromones that effect the hormones that affect our behavior.

—————————————————————

Notice that my comment to Science was received Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:42:49 -0500. I added links above to make it easier for others to verify whether my comment reflected what is currently known about  “Perception, physiology and odor rewards”

Dear James V. Kohl

Thank you for submitting your comment to *Science*. All comments are moderated by our editorial staff and, if approved, will be posted on our Web site shortly. You will receive another message when that happens. Submissions that do not follow our terms and conditions [https://comments.sciencemag.org/terms] will be deleted at the sole discretion of our editors. Please do not reply to this email address. If you believe
this message was sent to you in error, please alert science_letters@aaas.org.

For your records, a copy of your comment is included below:
———————————

Title:
/Drosophila/ Life Span and Physiology Are Modulated by Sexual Perception and
Reward

Received:
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:42:49 -0500

Your Comment:
Re (their conclusion) “…indirect genetic effects have the potential to be
influential agents of natural selection (25), suggesting that
expectation/reward imbalance may have broad effects on health and physiology
in humans and may present a potent evolutionary force in nature.”

In my model, the evolutionary force is olfactory/pheromonal input. I have
attempted to clarify the fact that “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a
clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to
insects to humans.” See, for example: “Human pheromones and food odors:
epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.”

Problems with that representation involve a conflict with current theories of
mutation-initiated natural selection, and its revision to mutation-driven
evolution sans natural selection by removing biophysical constraints on
adaptations to the sensory environment. Simply put, evolutionary theorists
don’t seem to appreciate any challenges to their preferred theory, even as
they change it to exclude physics. However, as we see here, there is
substantially more evidence that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and
pheromone-controlled.

We addressed pheromone-controlled reproduction in yeasts, insects, nematodes,
and mammals in the context of molecular epigenetics linked to alternative
splicings in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. The model of
hormone-organization and hormone-activation of behavior was extended to
invertebrates by Elekonich and Robinson (2000).

In one of my subsequent published works I added examples of how
nutrient-dependent single amino acid substitutions (see Dobzhansky,
1973)contribute to pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution and I used the
honeybee model organism to link yeasts, nematodes, insects, and other mammals
to humans via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche
construction. See for examples: “Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled
adaptive evolution: a model” in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology
2013, 3: 20553

The work reported here will facilitate comparisons of mutations theory to
natural selection of nutrients and their metabolism to the pheromones that
control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man. That
is what Darwin seemed to infer when he tried to establish the ‘conditions of
life’ that must precede consideration of what might be naturally selected or
sexually selected. We shall see what he meant.

———————————

Sincerely,
Science Magazine

Author: James Kohl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.