Teaching science to the religious: theories of development

“Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop.” February 19th, 2012.

Comment from a correspondent: ”Religious [people] base their belief in God on a feeling, like indigestion  …  Unfortunately, there is no antacid medication for stupidity…”

My response:  You seem to be conflating religion and belief in God. This invites comparison to the belief in God held by some molecular biologists (note the mention in the article of NIH director Francis Collins) who may better understand how medications for mental disorders change affective responses to sensory input. In this context, stupidity may or may not be a mental “disorder,” and it is problematic to classify via current knowledge of experiential changes in the brain that correlate with affective responses. Perhaps those with no religion have never experienced a brain change that others may or may not link to their belief in God. Clearly, however, some medications change the brain by altering the molecular biology of intracellular signaling, gene activation, and gene expression in cells of brain tissue in other mammals, and in people who believe in God, and in people who don’t. The basis for the development of these medications and their effect on hormones / neurotransmitters, which affect behavior, is the molecular biology that is common across all species from microbes to man. Until someone explains the commonality of the molecular biology, conflation of religion with belief in God, with indigestion and with stupidity seems unscientific, which I think is the point that people, like Miller, is trying to make. He said:  “It was and is philosophically consistent to be a person of faith and also a scientist.” (e.g.? like the scientists who developed the antacid medications for indigestion based on the molecular biology common to all living species?). Did you intend to indicate that this philosophical consistency is stupid? My intent is to indicate that philosophical consistency incorporates what is currently known about the across-species consistency of molecular mechanisms, like those found across species that incorporate the gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system approach to life.

Do Pheromones Play a Role in Our Sex Lives: Scientific American

Do Pheromones Play a Role in Our Sex Lives?

“Humans might use a nuanced concoction of chemicals even more complex than formal pheromones to attract potential mates. By Adam Hadhazy  | February 13, 2012 |

Excerpt: “Other work suggests that less familiar inputs might exist for a human pheromonal network. Investigations continue into a possible pheromone nerve, known as cranial nerve 0, or the terminal nerve. [For more about the terminal nerve, read "Sex and the Secret Nerve," by Douglas Fields, in Scientific American MIND, February/March 2007.]…”

—————————-

Fields has supporters, among them James Kohl, co-author of “The Scent of Eros,” a book on pheromones.

“He’s right on,” Kohl said. “We have known there is some physical link, but [nerve zero] really helps to define it. Maybe a lot of neuroscientists don’t know about it, but people who study the olfactory system and pheromones see that and say that’s really important.”

Did viruses make mammals communicate with pheromones?

Mammals Made By Viruses

by Carl Zimmer

Source: Discover Magazine
Excerpt from the article at the link (above):

“The big picture that’s now emerging is quite amazing. Viruses have rained down on mammals, and on at least six occasions, they’ve gotten snagged in their hosts and started carrying out the same function: building placentas.”

My comments:

“The concept that viruses might play a fundamental role in the evolution of the complexity of cellular life, as here proposed, may seem novel to many, especially to evolutionary biologists (Villarreal, 2004, p. 310).”

Your article reminded me of past discussion on the evolutionary psychology yahoo group  that resulted from my mention of the 1532 genes and interactions among them in the context of sexual reproduction that requires the mammalian placenta (Lynch, Leclerc, May, & Wagner, 2011). I learned about the likely involvement of viruses when I was asked about the role of pheromones in species specific communication as might occur in a new human species—detailed by Greg Bear in 1999/2003 in two of his science fiction novels (see Bear, 2004). But his questions, presentation to the American Philosophical Society, and comments led me to LP Villarreal (2004), and other more recent works that contain background information on the involvement of viruses in the creation of new species (Villarreal, 2009; Villarreal & Witzany, 2009). These works make it more clear that “…viruses may well be the unseen creator that most likely did contribute to making us human (Villarreal, 2004, p. 322).”

Did they do this by epigenetically altering food acquisition behavior, pheromone production, and thus social behavior? Perhaps viruses are calibrating all mechanisms for both individual survival and for speciation across all species. If so, shall we credit them for all of Creation?

References:

Bear, G. (2004). When Genes Go Walkabout. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 148(3), 324-331.

Lynch, V. J., Leclerc, R. D., May, G., & Wagner, G. P. (2011). Transposon-mediated rewiring of gene regulatory networks contributed to the evolution of pregnancy in mammals. Nat Genet, 43(11), 1154-1159.

Villarreal, L. P. (2004). Can Viruses Make Us Human? Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 148(3), 296-323.

Villarreal, L. P. (2009). Origin of group identity: viruses, addiction and cooperation. New York: Springer.

Villarreal, L. P., & Witzany, G. (2009). Viruses are essential agents within the roots and stem of the tree of life. J Theor Biol, 262(4), 698-710.

Is Love in the Air? Human Pheromones and Axillary Chemistry by George Preti

American Chemical Society (ACS Webinars™)

Joy of Science Channel

Given the forthcoming Valentine’s Day celebrations, this timely hour-long presentation by Dr. George Preti may be the most informative presentation on pheromones, including human pheromones that will ever be available ~ unless I am asked to present one (just kidding). George is the greatest! Meanwhile, my comments on his presentation may help to interest others in what he has to say about the chemistry of pheromones. I recommend his presentation without reservation, although he does not favorably represent most pheromone-enhanced products, and hope the comments below will be added to the ACS site. In case they are not, here is what I submitted:

Comment 1: I thank George for featuring my product “The Scent of Eros” in this excellent presentation about scientific facts and pheromones, including human pheromones. I will clarify the fact that my product does not contain androstenone, like the others George featured. It does contain androstenol which his work has shown alters levels of luteinizing hormone and mood in women.

At the 2011 annual meeting of the Association for Chemoreception Sciences, results from a study of college women were presented that showed this mixture of androstenol and androsterone (a primate specific indicator of reproductive fitness found in its highest concentrations in men) increased women’s observed flirtatious behavior and self-reported level of attraction to a man wearing the mixture (during a 15-minute interaction). The poster presentation is available on the New York Academy of Sciences Faculty of 1000 site at the following URL: http://posters.f1000.com/P1387 Although Dr. Preti was unable to attend the meeting where these results were presented, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say about them because they link an insect model of pheromones and behavior to my mammalian model. In this regard, I suggest that interested individuals also read my award-winning peer reviewed articles, my book, and my book chapter in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality. Again, thanks to George for advancing the science of human pheromones. Few people are as qualified as he is to do so.

Comment 2: What’s left after Dr. Preti’s excellent presentation on the chemistry of pheromones is their representation including cause and effect at the level of molecular biology. For example, watch for: Kohl JV (in press)  Human pheromones and food odors: Epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.  Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology. Abstract: Olfactory cues directly link the environment to gene expression. Two types of olfactory cues, food odors and social odors, alter genetically predisposed hormone-mediated activity in the mammalian brain. The honeybee is a model organism for understanding the epigenetic link from food odors and social odors to neural networks of the mammalian brain, which ultimately determine human behavior. Pertinent aspects that extend the honeybee model to human behavior include bottom-up followed by top-down gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ-system, and organism reciprocity; neurophysiological effects of food odors and of sexually dimorphic, species-specific social odors; a model of motor function required for social selection that precedes sexual selection; and hormonal effects that link current neuroscience to social science affects on the development of animal behavior. As the psychological influence of food odors and social orders is examined in detail, the socioaffective nature of olfactory cues on the biologically based development of sexual preferences across all species that sexually reproduce becomes clearer.

get it?

If you can grasp how food odors influence your behavior, you can probably grasp how social odors, called pheromones, influence your behavior. It’s the same way that pheromones and food odors influence behavior in every species. That means you don’t need to understand the required chemistry or molecular biology, you need only have common sense. And the only sense that’s common to all species on this planet is the sense of smell (represented as one of the chemical senses in species from microbes to man). So if you think the appeal of food or other people is a function of what you see (or hear), it’s time to come to your senses.

The cause of colony collapse could be a message for all of us

———————-

My comment:

In my next paper: “The honeybee is a model organism for understanding the epigenetic link from food odors and social odors to neural networks of the mammalian brain, which ultimately determine human behavior.” The honeybee already is a model organism for studying human immunity, disease resistance, allergic reaction, circadian rhythms, antibiotic resistance, the development of the brain and behavior, mental health, longevity, diseases of the X chromosome, and other aspects of eusocial species survival, like learning and memory, as well as conditioned responses to sensory stimuli. And it has become clearer that honey bee colonies and human individuals accumulate specific DNA methylation patterns in much the same way. From the perspective of molecular biology, this extends the honeybee superorganism metaphor to progress in socioaffective neuroscience.