a model for adaptive evolution, for example, that is not nutrient chemical-dependent and pheromone-controlled?
The ability of science writers to misrepresent what is known about cause and effect by biologists and attribute emotion to song in birds, visual input in some species, tactile input in others, and pheromones in insects defies common sense.
the only thing wrong with mathematical models of cause and effect is that they attribute indirect genetic effects, direct genetic effects, and affects on behavior to something unknown
The authors are among many, who seem to have missed a likely epigenetic link from maternal and/or acquired ferritin deficiency to thyroxine transport, brain development, and behavior.
it does help to make the differences between behaviorists and biologists more apparent, and I admire the way it clearly shows that the behaviorists have it backwards
A detailed model exemplifies the effects of olfactory/pheromonal conditioning, which alters genetically predisposed, nutrient chemical-dependent, hormone-driven mammalian behavior and choices for pheromones that control reproduction via their effects on luteinizing hormone.