Evolution of sex differences in cell types: more pseudoscientific nonsense
July 23, 2014 | James Kohl
Excerpt: “Models with coevolution of local adaptation and dispersal very rarely include sexual reproduction [20,21], even though local variation in sex ratio have been identified as increasing extinction risks [22–24] and can be a significant source of selection for or against dispersal [25,26].”
My comment: Evolutionary theorists seem to largely ignore the fact that sex differences in cell types are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which means they must first be considered in the context of genetically predisposed natural selection for ecological variation in nutrients. In the context of natural selection for food, there is no such thing as the evolution of sex differences in cell types. Sex differences are based on the ability of odors to induce the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes in other organisms, yeasts are a model organism for the differentiation of all cell types via conserved molecular mechanisms that link microbes to man.
For information about the nutrient-dependent advent of sex differences in the cell types of yeasts, which links conserved molecular mechanisms to sexual differentiation in cell types of all other species see: Gene duplication as a mechanism of genomic adaptation to a changing environment: “One of the main duplicated gene families are the olfactory receptor proteins [18,117–119] so perhaps their duplication may lead to an increase in sensitivity to a particular odour may be adaptive under certain conditions.”
Ignoring the conserved molecular mechanisms of sex differences in cell types has led evolutionary theorists to a dead end when it comes to attempts to explain homosexual orientation, which is probably the reason models of coevolution rarely include sexual reproduction. Besides, the claim that “Demography can favour female-advantageous alleles” has already been placed into the context of nutrient-dependent sex differences in cell types and the pheromone-controlled physiology of sexual reproduction in yeasts by serious scientists.
For example see: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior “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 (Adler and Hajduk, 1994; de Bono, Zarkower, and Hodgkin, 1995; Ge, Zuo, and Manley, 1991; Green, 1991; Parkhurst and Meneely, 1994; Wilkins, 1995; Wolfner, 1988). That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex differences may arise from alternative splicings of otherwise identical genes.”
If you think that models of coevolution of local adaptation can be placed into the context of evolutionary theory by ignoring what is currently known about nutrient-dependent cell type differentiation, you should start thinking about how human homosexual orientation “evolved” before a serious scientist accuses you of touting pseudoscientific nonsense about sexual reproduction based on models of population genetics that fail to consider local ecological variation in yeasts that leads to global ecological adaptations via nutrient-dependent gene duplication without the pseudoscientific nonsense.
“Parenthetically it is interesting to note even the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a gene-based equivalent of sexual orientation (i.e., a-factor and alpha-factor physiologies). These differences arise from different epigenetic modifications of an otherwise identical MAT locus.” (Diamond, Binstock and Kohl, 1996)