Quantized energy-dependent sexual preferences vs evolution

Evolution of a central neural circuit underlies Drosophila mate preferences

A change in the balance of excitation and inhibition onto courtship-promoting neurons transforms an excitatory pheromonal cue in D. melanogaster into an inhibitory cue in D. simulans.

Pat Sweeney shared this link to the Neuroscience FB group. Typically, after a series of nonsensical dialogues with me, he removes his posts, which is why I am reporting the claim here.

See: Deep in the fly brain, a clue to how evolution changes minds

The differences between the species, they found, lies deep in the flies’ brains, in a small cluster of neurons that controls mating behavior. In fact, the peripheral nervous systems were unchanged, suggesting they play no part in the distinct mating choices of the different species, a finding Ruta hadn’t anticipated.

“I think scientists in the field have long thought the changes would most likely be localized to the periphery partially due to the fact that it is the simplest place to look,” she says. “People have not had the genetic tools available to really trace sensory signals as they propagate through brain circuitry.”
The “change in the balance of excitation and inhibition” is quantized energy-dependent and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions links the change from biophysically constrained viral latency to healthy longevity in all living genera via the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction.

See for a similar error in logic linked to neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense: The vibrational theory of olfaction for the win

John Hewitt thinks “…an intrinsic covalently-bonded chromophore is spontaneously constructed from the side chains of the tripeptide Ser65-Tyr66-Gly67.”

He exemplifies human idiocy. Nothing is spontaneously constructed. See:

Food energy is required for the construction of enzymes, hormones and receptors. Most serious scientists refuse to discuss that fact with theorists.

Mae-Wan Ho: No Boundary Really Between Genetic and Epigenetic (2015)

…evolutionary science has now “moved on to such an extent” that she and Peter Saunders don’t really care anymore about “trying to convince the neo-Darwinists.

See also “Cytosis” for ages 10+.

A board game taking place inside a human cell! Players compete to build enzymes, hormones and receptors and fend off attacking Viruses!

The players learn about the complexity of creation in the context of everything required to link the functional structure of supercoiled DNA to protection from the virus-driven theft of quantized energy, which causes the mutations that all serious scientists have linked to all pathology, which includes what some may consider to be pathological changes in sexual orientation.

See also: The Mind’s Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences (2006/7)

From an evolutionary perspective, highly conserved GnRH peptide ligand/receptor signaling mechanisms are the molecular biochemical mechanisms for sexual reproduction in all organisms.  These signaling mechanisms also appear to play an integral role in the development of sexual preferences.  From a religious perspective, these signaling mechanisms dictate that the creation of life, which begets life, also allows for the creation of diversified life through the same mechanisms.  These mechanisms allow life to recognize the difference between self and non-self and to respond to this difference.

Some people respond negatively to the differences in other people. Others accept the differences with or without condoning the associated behavior. Most scientists avoid antagonizing non-scientists and all biologically uninformed science idiots.

See for example: Use/disuse paradigms are ubiquitous concepts in characterizing the process of inheritance (2017)

The primacy of DNA in all biochemical processes within one generation must not be confused with a much more doubtable primacy in all processes of inheritance. Admitting to different modes of hereditary transmission and different types of explanations might enhance our understanding of the variety of processes governing inheritance and – in the long run – also evolution.

No antagonism there! Just the facts that could be linked to enhanced understanding.

See for example: A Double-Negative Feedback Interaction between DNMT3A and miR-145 in the Warburg Effect of Ovarian Cancer Cells

In the context of claims that theorists refuse to make about how feedback loops evolve, does anyone else believe that this double negative feedback loop between miR-145 and DNMT3A evolved to become a potent signature for the Warburg effect in ovarian cancer?

I ask because commonly held beliefs about evolution contribute to missing a potential target for improved anti-cancer treatment and the treatment of all other pathology.

Simply put, established scientific facts suggest that theorists might continue to cause more unnecessary suffering or kill us all if we let them keep touting their pseudoscientific nonsense.

See for comparison: Subatomic and Combating Evolution to Fight Disease (2014)

Sophie Juliane Veigl has since placed the ability to evolve into the proper context.

See: Evolution – Genetic Novelty / Genomic Variations by RNA Networks and Viruses

Transgenerational RNAs – Inheritance of Immunological Identity?

Philosophical as well as biological theories of the self / identity rely very much on a theory of evolution by random (DNA-based) selection. However, the small RNA based paradigm of immunological memory opens up a different perspectives for considering identity.

The small RNA based paradigm of biophysically constrained immunological memory has been supported by ~75,000 published works on microRNAs.

Author: James Kohl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.