The search for human pheromones

pheromone
Male Danaus chrysippus showing the pheromone pouch and brush-like organ in Kerala, India. Credit: © 2010 Jeevan Jose, Kerala, India is used under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
"Do humans have pheromones?" asks a review published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B today. Professor Tristram Wyatt from the University of Oxford says that if we want to find out we need to start from scratch.

Pheromones are that help animals to communicate. Members of the same species respond to each other's pheromone releases by changing a behaviour or undergoing a physiological change. For example male house mice pheromones trigger aggression in other males and speed up puberty in young female mice. Though pheromones have been discovered across the animal kingdom, so far evidence for a human pheromone is elusive.

'Smelly t-shirt' experiments, where participants sniff the armpits of worn t-shirts, are sometimes mistakenly thought of as pheromones. These, however, are smells that help identify how compatible our immune systems are with one another. Importantly pheromones aren't unique to individuals in this way but are common to all members of a species.

Since the 1970s some androstenone steroids have been called human pheromones but the results don't add up, says the paper published today. Androstenone and androstenol have pheromone effects in pigs and are also found in human armpit sweat but Professor Wyatt writes in the paper that doesn't necessarily prove they're also human pheromones.

Despite the lack of robust evidence so far Professor Wyatt says that there's no reason why humans couldn't have pheromones but that if we want to find them we need to study ourselves in the way we study other animals. 'There are no shortcuts,' writes Professor Wyatt.

Scientists should use biological tests to prove potential pheromone chemicals cause a behavioural or physiological response in a test group and then artificially synthesise the active molecule. Then researchers should test that, at the concentrations found naturally, to see if the synthesised 'pheromone' recreates the original change in humans.

To find pheromones scientists need to start looking beyond the armpit, says the review. In fact the most promising might not even be to do with sex but to do with mothering. Smell is important to suckling babies and scientists have already shown that a nipple secretion taken from a lactating mother and put under a sleeping baby's nose makes them respond with sucking- even if the baby doesn't belong to the mother.

'We do not yet know if humans have pheromones,' writes Professor Wyatt. 'But we can be sure that we shall never find anything if we follow the current path. We need to start again'.


Explore further

Video: Can pheromones get you a date?

More information: "The search for human pheromones: the lost decades and the necessity of returning to first principles." Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Apr 7;282(1804). pii: 20142994. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25740891
Provided by The Royal Society
Citation: The search for human pheromones (2015, March 12) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-03-human-pheromones.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
17 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 12, 2015
when I was young and single (I'm a man) I experimented a bit with human pheremones. Various brands, some were more effective than others. My conclusions were that it does do something, but its not necessarily how you think it would work.
1) You can sense it on yourself, it gives an elated drug like feeling.
2) It can get you into trouble, i.e. forcing attraction with married women for instance,
3) It can have an unwanted effect on people around you, because it acts by smell and diffuses
4) Other men can sense it and they immediately see you as a threat
I really convinced myself that worked one time when I accidentally spilled a whole bottle on myself and then got onto a bus, everybody was staring at me on the bus it was really weird, but definitely they could "smell it".
5) It doesn't necessarily lead to more sex in social situations, however, at home with one girl then I think it increases your chances.

Mar 12, 2015
by the way these were androstenone steroids, they DO work and the premise that they are not human pheromones is utterly incorrect. Professor Wyatt needs to do some experimenting on himself!

Mar 12, 2015
^ why, precisely, the plural of anecdote is not "data."

Just because you "experimented" with 'pheromones' doesn't mean you created rigorous, controlled studies. Did you blind yourself to the product you were using? Or were you aware you had on 'pheromones' and were, say, more confident in your personality? Did you test others who were "sensing" the pheromones in a controlled, blinded manner? (like compare their reactions directly between those with and without 'pheromones.')

Mar 12, 2015
This is going to be AWESOME when JVK gets here. :-)

Mar 12, 2015
I'm just relating my personal experience, you don't have to believe my conclusions but hey. I'm not the one who's just written a peer reviewed paper that is clearly nonsense.

Mar 12, 2015
There is only one thing that's a pheromone for men and that pleasant odor emanates from between the legs of the female of our species.

Everything else Natty is BS. No one is better at convincing us then ourselves or yourself in this case.

Mar 12, 2015
Do your own research. I am not bullshitting you. I'm pointing out that this supposition that human pheromones do not exist is a flawed one.

Mar 12, 2015
This is going to be AWESOME when JVK gets here. :-)
@Saul
i doubt very seriously little jimmy k will be coming by...LOL

this single study completely undermines his entire model as well as everything he believes in... the finniest thing is that it also would UNDERMINE his current occupation... selling stinky love potions to stupid teenagers!!
LMFAO
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf


JVK
Mar 12, 2015
Wyatt ignores what is known about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation. In all animals, it is nutrient-dependent and RNA-directed.

Nutrient-dependent DNA methylation links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man via fixation of the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in organized genomes. Fixation occurs via the physiology of their pheromone-controlled reproduction.

Anyone who questions the fact that human pheromones link RNA-mediated amino acids to nutrient-dependent cell type differentiation via the same pathway as food odors does so by playing word games with the 1959 definition of pheromones.

That's what the biologically uninformed "experts" have done since they invented neo-Darwinism via de Vries definition of "mutation" and made assumptions about how long it took for one species to "evolve" into another. Wyatt is simply another simple-minded expert.

JVK
Mar 12, 2015
Human pheromones and nutrient chemicals: epigenetic effects on ecological, social, and neurogenic niches that affect behavior http://f1000.com/.../1092668

"Main conclusion:
Neuroscientifically established epigenetic effects of sensory input on hormones that affect behavior suggest that this mixture of human pheromones causes changes in ecotypically organized neural pathways that directly link nutrient chemicals and social niche construction to 1) neurogenic niches, 2) the molecular biology of evolved neural circuitry, 3) genetically predisposed physiological changes, and to 4) unconscious effects on behavior in species from invertebrates to mammals."

We used a mixture of androstenol and androsterone. When other researchers complained that we did not use a masking odor, LK repeated the study using sandalwood and added a questionaire. The women self-reported more attraction in addition to exhibiting more flirtatious behaviors.

Mar 12, 2015
HAHA this is great!

JVK
Mar 12, 2015
It is based on the publications referenced on the F1000 site:
References:
[1]
Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors
Kohl J
Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 2, 2012 Mar 15
[2]
Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.
Kohl JV, Atzmueller M, Fink B, Grammer K
Neuro Endocrinol Lett 22, 2001 Oct; 309-21
[3]
From fertilization to adult sexual behavior.
Diamond M, Binstock T, Kohl JV
Horm Behav 30, 1996 Dec; 333-53

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology and "Comparative approaches in evolutionary psychology: molecular neuroscience meets the mind" won the same award http://www.ncbi.n...12496741

The award was for linking hormones and behavior, which is what Elekonich and Robinson (2000) did before our 1996 review was linked from invertebrates to all other species via the life history transitions in the honeybee. Elekonich and Roberts (2005)

JVK
Mar 12, 2015
Excerpt: "...the most promising pheromone might not even be to do with sex but to do with mothering."

Androstenol alters human LH secretion. Wyatt is biologically uninformed.

See also: http://www.socioa...ew/17338
"Within minutes of birth, there is also a genetically predisposed, sexually differentiated, GnRH-directed, luteinizing hormone (LH) response in mammalian males, but not in females (Grumbach & Styne, 1992). Activation of the male's LH response involves GnRH (Hoffman, Lee, Attardi, Yann, & Fitzsimmons, 1990), and the GnRH-directed LH response to female pheromones is linked to increased testosterone (T) secretion in the males of many different species (Nyby, 2008).

In mammalian males, the LH response at birth appears to be caused by pheromones associated with food odors emanating from the mother's nipple (Schaal et al., 2009; Schaal, Doucet, Sagot, Hertling, & Soussignan, 2006)."

JVK
Mar 12, 2015
The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences
http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation (2011) p. 210
"This model is attractive in that it solves the "binding problem" of sexual attraction. By that I mean the problem of why all the different features of men or women (visual appearance and feel of face, body, and genitals; voice quality, smell; personality and behavior, etc.) attract people as a more or less coherent package representing one sex, rather than as an arbitrary collage of male and female characteristics. If all these characteristics come to be attractive because they were experienced in association with a male- or female-specific pheromone, then they will naturally go together even in the absence of complex genetically coded instructions."

See also: https://www.youtu...youtu.be and
https://www.youtu...NcMR_-RU

Mar 13, 2015
Are you kidding, Captain Stumpy? How could he resist! Facts never bothered him before; why should they now?

Mar 13, 2015
Are you kidding, Captain Stumpy? How could he resist! Facts never bothered him before; why should they now?
@Mooster75
i was demonstrating a tactic that i learned while studying this particular troll

notice that in 5 posts and 6 links
(along with all his self-aggrandizement and self references above without links)
he epically FAILS to produce a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that proves human pheromones are real?
(which is what the article is about)

in ALL OF THAT, there is NOT ONE LINK
NOT ONE
that proves- using the scientific method- that human pheromones are even REAL

did yall notice that?

that is why i linked this post in other threads!
to BRING him here

and guess what?

HE STILL HAS NO EVIDENCE!
ROTFLMFAO

NONE AT ALL

and like you said mooster... why let FACTS bother him now?
LMFAO
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
FAILS to produce a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that proves human pheromones are real?


http://f1000.com/.../1092668

"Main conclusion:
Neuroscientifically established epigenetic effects of sensory input on hormones that affect behavior suggest that this mixture of human pheromones causes changes in ecotypically organized neural pathways that directly link nutrient chemicals and social niche construction to 1) neurogenic niches, 2) the molecular biology of evolved neural circuitry, 3) genetically predisposed physiological changes, and to 4) unconscious effects on behavior in species from invertebrates to mammals."

We used a mixture of androstenol and androsterone. When other researchers complained that we did not use a masking odor, LK repeated the study using sandalwood and added a questionaire. The women self-reported more attraction in addition to exhibiting more flirtatious behaviors.

Mar 13, 2015
@JVK

LMFAO!

Self reference isn't evidence.

Mar 13, 2015
http://f1000.com/.../1092668
HEY @little jimmie k
still having problems with that?
ok, maybe you can answer some of these questions:

HOW COME there are NO studies validating your claims to have found human pheromones?

how come there are NO validations of your study linked?

how come there is NO replication available of that study from secondary sources proving you were right?

How come the ABOVE ARTICLE and LINKED STUDY completely INVALIDATE your supposed "proof" and linked study iof you are SO sure that "androstenol and androsterone" are pheromones?

having problems with the validation of your claims there little jimmie?
maybe because YOU ARE A FRAUD? http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

you like to SELF reference because you have a vested interest in selling stinky perfume... but that doesn't mean YOU have been externally validated or even proven correct!

EPIC FAIL

AGAIN

Mar 13, 2015
Badadadada, I'm lovin' it!

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
how come there are NO validations of your study linked?


Thanks for asking.

The link from human pheromones to subtle differences in behavior, like those associated with exposure to different food odors, makes the entirety of the evolution industry look foolish. Social scientists failed to recognize the obvious connection from microbes to man.

That's also why people like Wyatt don't mention my book publication in 1995 and 2002 or my other published works or the domain Pheromones.com or PerfumingtheMind.com or RNA-mediated.com

Colleagues did use our study design, but did not use a mixture of human pheromones and reported "The current results reject the idea that Androstadienone enhances flirting behavior within couples."
Olsson, M. J., Lundstrom, J. N., Esteves, F., Arriaga, P., McClintock, M. K. (2008). Effects of Androstadienone and Menstrual Cycle Phase on Flirting Behavior in Random Couples. Chemical Senses, 33 (8), S173-S174.

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
... NO validations of your study linked?


The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality
http://www.amazon...9523383X

Reviews: "This is science at its best, with adventure, ideas, and lots of facts".-- Helen Fisher
http://books.goog...AAAAIAAJ

http://human-natu...ohl.html review by Mark Sergeant

http://www.ipt-fo..._br9.htm Reviewed by Ralph Underwager, Institute for Psychological Therapies.

http://www.epinio...148?sb=1 Review by Jan Peregrine

No evolutionists are likely to replicate our results. They would be refuting too much pseudoscientific nonsense. Only serious scientists report the obvious fact that "Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction" http://www.ncbi.n...16290036

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Evolutionists also typically avoid the issue of pheromones in sexual orientation.

Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation
http://www.amazon...99737673

p. 210 "This model is attractive in that it solves the "binding problem" of sexual attraction. By that I mean the problem of why all the different features of men or women (visual appearance and feel of face, body, and genitals; voice quality, smell; personality and behavior, etc.) attract people as a more or less coherent package representing one sex, rather than as an arbitrary collage of male and female characteristics. If all these characteristics come to be attractive because they were experienced in association with a male- or female-specific pheromone, then they will naturally go together even in the absence of complex genetically coded instructions."

Mar 13, 2015
"The Scent of Eros is certainly an engaging text that informs the reader about the majority of key studies performed on human olfaction. Where it is let down is a lack of supporting evidence for some of the ideas considered, and a lack of critical consideration for some of the evidence that is presented. A reader unfamiliar with olfaction research could come away from this text unaware of several key debates within the field, and take it for granted that humans do possess a functional VNO, and that the term pheromone can be applied legitimately in research concerning human olfaction. In short this lack of a critical approach undermines the validity of the book's contents."

http://human-natu...ohl.html

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Self reference isn't evidence.


Of course it is! It also shows who the pseudoscientists are. They are the biologically uninformed science idiots who ignored what we included about the molecular epigenetics of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from yeasts to mammals. See: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

More than 18 years ago we were the first to detail how everything that is currently known about physics and chemistry fits into a model of cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species during their life history transitions, yet the pseudoscientists have claimed there are no human pheromones.

Tristram Wyatt has set the stage for others to report their discovery of human pheromones, which will be called something else to make it look like they discovered something new, not that they missed the obvious.

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
In short this lack of a critical approach undermines the validity of the book's contents.


"However it should be remembered that this book is aimed at a general audience, and as a result the authors may have felt it inappropriate to address the debates within olfaction research for such an audience. For a more academic consideration of the field by the authors, I would recommend Kohl's more recent review paper (Kohl et al, 2001), which addresses the issues outlined above."

See the award-winning review that Steven Taylor (aka Vietvet) just tried to remove from consideration by quote mining the review from Mark Sergeant.

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology http://www.nel.ed...view.htm

Also, it was this award-winning published work that LeVay reviewed in his book:
The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences
http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

Mar 13, 2015
http://m.epinions.com/review/The_Scent_of_Eros_Mysteries_of_Odor_in_Human_Sexuality_by_James_V_Kohl/2001625399/158077718148

@JVK

You are pretty desperate to include to include such a badly written and ignorant review.

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences
2007 PowerPoint presentation http://perfumingt...site.ppt

2010 Powerpoint presentation http://perfumingt...9036.ppt

Obviously, serious scientists who are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short know why pseudoscientists are not mentioning my history of published works and presentations.

It is equally obvious why theorists won't ask other theorists why they are ignoring the information about top-down causation that does not support their ridiculous theories. They don't want to know how ridiculous their theories are.

http://rsfs.royal...abstract "Areas where striking progress is being made in this regard are epigenetics [22] and social neuroscience [23]."

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
You are pretty desperate to include to include such a badly written and ignorant review.


I'm not desperate. I have been at the forefront of the striking progress being made in epigenetics and social neuroscience for more than two decades.

Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. http://www.ncbi.n...24693349

I'm not even desperate to gain recognition for three decades of work. I just hate ignorance, that's all.

Evolutionary theory kills, and I dealt with that fact throughout a 39-year career as a medical laboratory scientist. Now, everything known about nutrigenomics and pharmacogenomics attests to the same things. RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions differentiate cell types and evolutionary theorists are biologically uninformed.

See: Clinically Actionable Genotypes Among 10,000 Patients With Preemptive Pharmacogenomic Testing http://www.medsca...24253661

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Our data support this model, wherein the aminergic system in the mpFC has a central role in dopaminergic and GABAergic neurotransmission in the NAc and amygdala, respectively. Furthermore, our findings support a model of genotype-dependent control of the prefrontal-accumbal-amygdala neural circuit, which could mediate the differential behavioral responses to many natural and pharmacological rewarding and aversive stimuli.
doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00207

See also the link from the aminergic system to the honeybee model organism of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled behavior:

"The observations of Dietrich et al.1 broaden the role of AgRP neurons in behavior from regulation of feeding to the control of motivation and reward signaling by dopamine neurons. Their results complement recent findings that AgRP neurons also control fertility in mice with deficient leptin signaling14,15." http://www.nature...167.html

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Strain-dependent differences in corticolimbic processing of aversive or rewarding stimuli
http://www.ncbi.n...25698940

Conclusion: "...our findings support a model of genotype-dependent control of the prefrontal-accumbal-amygdala neural circuit, which could mediate the differential behavioral responses to many natural and pharmacological rewarding and aversive stimuli.

The naturally rewarding stimuli are food odor and pheromones because they control the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding via amino acid substitutions. The pharmacological rewarding and aversive stimuli link the amino acid substitutions from metabolic networks to genetic networks in species from microbes to man via the conserved molecular epigenetics of cell type differentiation we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review.

Mar 13, 2015
"This occasional lack of corroborating evidence is compounded by a lack of critical reasoning on the part of the authors. The use of the term pheromone is an excellent example. The authors introduce this in the context of Karlson and Lusher's (1959) original definition, which can be loosely reduced to a substance involved in chemical communication between two individual organisms, usually of the same species that produces a specific behaviour or effect on development. However other characteristics of pheromones are highly debated. Does a signal have to be unconsciously received to be a pheromone? Does it have to produce an innate response? Does there have to be an evolutionary advantage to both the sender and receiver? None of these questions are addressed in the text. Based on these criteria the question of whether humans can actually transmit and receive pheromones is also fiercely debated within the field of olfaction research (Ben-Ari, 1998), yet this debate is also not addressed

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
For example of an amino acid substitution that differentiates the cell types in the brain during life history transitions in humans, see: http://dx.doi.org...4-0895-5

The Val158Met substitution is currently reported in test results from Alphagenomix, along with other substitutions that differentiate the effects of mutations on perturbed protein folding from the epigenetic effects of amino acids substitutions on protein folding stability.

See also: http://www.labtub...s-120704

Observations of genetic variation in drug disposition since the 1980s with the elucidation of the molecular mechanisms at the gene level of these polymorphisms include the example of cytochrome P450 CYP2D6.

Developments have extended pharmacogenetic approaches that include multigenic, epigenetic, transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic information, all of which are ignored by evolutionary theorists.

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Does a signal have to be unconsciously received to be a pheromone? Does it have to produce an innate response? Does there have to be an evolutionary advantage to both the sender and receiver? None of these questions are addressed in the text.


However, if they were, they would be ignored by pseudoscientists who insist on inventing their own ridiculous definitions to make it appear they are reporting something new.

See for example: The Great Pheromone Myth http://www.amazon...one+Myth

(p. 3) "A key element of my thesis is that it is erroneous to infer that a plurality of mammalian behaviors and endocrine responses is uniquely determined in an invariant way by single or small sets of chemical stimuli and to apply a generic and misleading name to the presumptive agents in support of such an inference."

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Re: "...a plurality of mammalian behaviors and endocrine responses is uniquely determined in an invariant way by single or small sets of chemical stimuli and to apply a generic and misleading name to the presumptive agents..."

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact." http://www.huffin...211.html

Definitions and assumptions are the basis of all pseudoscientific nonsense, but they support the evolution industry and "big bang" cosmology industry. Academics have little choice but to use the tricks of their trades lest they be ostracized or lose funding. Most are not qualified for work as a medical laboratory scientist or to combat disease.

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Re: "Most are not qualified for work as a medical laboratory scientist or to combat disease."

I think that is why Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) is working at McDonalds, and Steven Taylor (aka Vietvet) is unemployed. I could be wrong, but I'm sure about one thing: Neither has the intelligence level of one of Mendel's peas. If a pea could answer the question: Where does your biological energy came from," it would say "from the sun."

Science idiots would ask: "How does a pea know that?" They might claim that Mendel never proved that peas could be grown in the dark, which suggests that the differences arose via mutations. If the lack of evidence that peas don't grow in the dark was not proof that the sun's biological energy is required, they would invent a theory and definitions that suggested mutation-driven evolution was still somehow possible.

see: http://www.amazon...99661731 "...constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all..."

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Re: http://www.amazon...99661731 "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world."

Only someone unable to link physics to the chemistry of protein folding and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all animals of all species would make such a ridiculous claim (on the same day my 2013 review was published).

See: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

See for confirmation: http://genomebiol.../16/1/50
"HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution."

HGT links ecological variation and nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in all animals.

Mar 13, 2015
Re: http://www.amazon...99661731
"HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution."

HGT links ecological variation and nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in all animals.


JVK's last sentence is not supported by the linked study.

Mar 13, 2015
Re: http://www.amazon...99661731
"HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution."

HGT links ecological variation and nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in all animals.


JVK's last sentence is not supported by the linked study.


Edit:
http://genomebiol.../16/1/50

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
http://www.ncbi.n...3960071/
"Among different bacterial species existing in similar environments, DNA uptake (Palchevskiy & Finkel, 2009) appears to have epigenetically 'fed' interspecies methylation and speciation via conjugation (Fall et al., 2007; Finkel & Kolter, 2001; Friso & Choi, 2002). This indicates that reproduction began with an active nutrient uptake mechanism in heterospecifics and that the mechanism evolved to become symbiogenesis in the conspecifics of asexual organisms (Margulis, 1998)."

Clearly, there is an advantage to pattern recognition of what occurs in every species. It enables serious scientists to state what is currently known about biologically-based cause and effect without repeating every other study of it that has ever been used to refute ridiculous theories that attribute increasing organismal complexity to mutations and evolution, instead of HGT.

http://phys.org/n...ors.html

Mar 13, 2015
I think that is why Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) is working at McDonalds


Wrong. That was in high school. Quite a while ago now.

Mar 13, 2015
[However, if they were, they would be ignored by pseudoscientists who insist on inventing their own ridiculous definitions to make it appear they are reporting something new.

Pot - meet kettle?

JVK
Mar 13, 2015
Wrong. That was in high school. Quite a while ago now.


Burger King?

Virus-driven cell type differentiation http://rna-mediat...tiation/
Excerpt: Taken together with the fact that genome-wide protein coding is nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated, it may be easier to understand why the biophysical constraints on the chemistry of protein folding must involve the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction, which enables fixation of the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell type in all individuals of all species. For a review of what is currently known about physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation, see: Molar Mass, Size, Charge and Interactions: Light Scattering Tools for Essential Biophysical Characterization"

Mar 13, 2015
JVK=Creationist=science idiot.

Mar 13, 2015
JVK is the worst kind of spamming troll. Daily he provides self referencing links on multiple threads and pretends studies by others bolster his ridiculous claims. He doesn't understand the basics of biology and tries to hide that behind word salads.

JVK=Creationist=science idiot,

Mar 14, 2015
You left out con man.

JVK
Mar 14, 2015
...pretends studies by others bolster his ridiculous claims."


Perhaps you simply don't understand because you are a biologically uninformed science idiot?

https://event.on2...register
"Biophysical techniques based on static and dynamic light scattering address many of the key analytical challenges in biotherapeutic R&D, from early candidate selection through scale-up, formulation, characterization, and comparability studies. This seminar will review light scattering technology and instrumentation, then present select examples illustrating how complete light scattering solutions facilitate rapid and effective development of biologics including mAbs, ADCs, PEGylated, and other proteins as well as viruses, VLPs, and nanoparticle drug-delivery vehicles."

The examples of biologically-based cause and effect are important.

Mar 15, 2015
While my background is in applied physics, and I must admit, I ignored biological sciences with a vengeance, yet as a single man, I only have one need for a legitimate human pheromone. And as a consumer, I would be willing to pay for it if it works.

JVK
Mar 15, 2015
Light-induced amino acid substitutions link the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding to the nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all animal species via their pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction, which enables the population wide fixation of the amino acid substitutions in organized genomes.

Knowing how physics, chemistry, and molecular epigenetics are involved in communication across species is what led to the experimental evidence of top-down causation linked to a mixture of androstenol and androsterone presented here: Human pheromones and nutrient chemicals: epigenetic effects on ecological, social, and neurogenic niches that affect behavior. http://f1000.com/.../1092668

Science idiots hate to be reminded that "Life is physics and chemistry and communication" http://dx.doi.org...as.12570 They prefer to believe in ridiculous theories.

JVK
Mar 15, 2015
See also:
Epigenetics Skeptism http://rna-mediat...keptism/
and
Is DNA-directed transcription RNA-mediated?
http://rna-mediat...ediated/

Those who have a background in applied physics might someday begin to use it in attempts to teach the biologically uninformed about food odors and pheromones, since they link cell type differentiation in all animal species.

That fact makes it easier to address the claims of human pheromone-deniers, which are nothing more than extensions of the pseudoscientific nonsense they were taught to believe in about mutations and evolution.

Mar 15, 2015
Light-induced amino acid substitutions


You never demonstrated they were caused by light. All the paper concerned was how a substitution altered a protein's reaction to light, not what caused the substitution in the first place.

Cause and effect is one of your catchphrases, but you've falsely attributed light as the cause in this scenario without any evidence to support that claim.

Mar 17, 2015
to address the claims of human pheromone-deniers
@little jimmie k
but you have NOT addressed anything... you've posted self references and personal claims, as well as self-published BS that shows no empirical evidence, only your personal opinion

first off: you have NOT convinced the scientific community of human pheromones

secondly: anecdotal evidence from your stinky perfume is NOT empirical evidence

more importantly: just because you can design an experiment that is biased and bound to give a result that is intentionally canted and in favor of your choice of result determined before the experiment does NOT mean that it is a good study

the only thing you are pushing is PSEUDOSCIENCE
not actual science
SO
STOP SPAMMING WITH YOUR SITE

no one here wants your perfume and intelligent people don't want PSEUDOSCIENCE


JVK
Mar 17, 2015
Rapid diversification associated with a macroevolutionary pulse of developmental plasticity
http://elifescien...fe.05463

The dimorphism results from an irreversible decision during development, enabling a rapid optimization of morphology to the environment (Bento et al., 2010). This response is mediated by small-molecule pheromones (e.g., dasc#1, ascr#1) (Bose et al., 2012), endocrine signaling (dafachronic acid-DAF-12) (Bento et al., 2010), and a switch mechanism executed by the sulfatase EUD-1 (Ragsdale et al., 2013).


http://phys.org/n...ing.html
The patterns of synaptic connections perfectly mirror the fundamental differences in the feeding behaviours of P. pacificus and C. elegans"


Does anyone have an example of mutation-driven evolution for comparison to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in species from microbes to humans?

JVK
Mar 17, 2015
you have NOT convinced the scientific community of human pheromones


Of course I have. There's a model for that.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

No serious scientist has challenged the model of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation since it was first detailed in our 1996 review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Pseudoscientists challenge the model because that's all they can do. They don't have an alternative model that links the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding to the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species, and they cannot grasp the fact that the molecular mechanisms are the same in all species.

It is not possible to convince pseudoscientists of anything. They won't accept the evidence.

JVK
Mar 17, 2015
You never demonstrated they were caused by light.


The alternative is that they were caused by magic or mutations.

In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland's team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids.
http://news.scien...onundrum

The link from UV light to amino acid substitutions suggests top-down causation via the sun's biological energy, which is linked to the physiology of reproduction and fixation of the amino acid substitutions in all genera -- except in theory.

In theory, "...constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations..." Nei (2013) Mutation-driven evolution

Mar 17, 2015
UV light is indeed linked to amino acid substitutions via the mutations it causes. UV light indiscriminately messes with the bonds in DNA. Are you suggesting an organism can specifically direct UV light to cause DNA changes it has identified it needs?

http://link.sprin...3#page-2
http://www.ncbi.n...11684456
http://www.hindaw.../592980/

Mar 17, 2015
Of course I have
@little jimmie k
if you HAD, and there was irrefutable evidence and repeatable experiments that were UNBIASED as well as definitive, there would NOW be this article OR study here: http://phys.org/n...nes.html

http://www.ncbi.n...25740891

the fact that those studies/articles exist logically show that you are a liar as well as pushing pseudoscience and you don't know what you are talking about
There's a model for that.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
and i can completely DEBUNK that model with this link: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

need i also point out that every time you've tried to interpret any scientific studies you have fell far short of actual understanding of the study?
you have a 100% rate there...
100% of the authors who reply to us show that you are completely wrong in your assessment of their work

Mar 17, 2015
They don't have an alternative model
@little lying jimmie
and there is no requirement to define or explain a new model when debunking an old model or one that is truly wrong

take aether wave theory: it is completely debunked in more ways than even YOUR model, however, there was no replacement model for the aether
there is NO NEED to replace stupidity with a model
The alternative is that they were caused by magic or mutations
just because YOU do not understand the science doesn't mean that it is not understood

so your model is crap and debunked
and you can't comprehend biology or other studies
and you lie about pheromones
the real point is that you are interpreting SCIENCE with your RELIGION, which is nothing more than seeking justification for a delusion

no matter WHAT is found, you will think it is evidence for your beliefs, even when it directly refutes them (As the studies you tend to quote always do- like Dr. Extavour's work)


JVK
Mar 17, 2015
Are you suggesting an organism can specifically direct UV light to cause DNA changes it has identified it needs?


No. What kind of idiot would suggest that? I'm suggesting this -- in the context of ecological variation and ecological adaption (not mutations and evolution). See:

Language of gene switches unchanged across the evolution http://phys.org/n...ion.html

It would be extremely difficult for anyone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot to continue believing that the evolution of these switches has anything to do with mutations.

The conservation of the switches across species links them from nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation and amino acid substitutions to the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding via fixation of the substitutions the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

Mar 17, 2015
Then what are you suggesting when you talk about light-induced amino acid substitutions?

What's different about the interaction of UV and DNA in substitutions vs. mutations?

JVK
Mar 18, 2015
What's different about the interaction of UV and DNA in substitutions vs. mutations?


Stop pretending you don't know that I have detailed every aspect of this in my blog posts.

http://perfumingt...mit.y=22
http://rna-mediat...-induced

Mar 18, 2015
I thought I was actually going to make progress with that one, but you refuse to directly answer questions still.

You can say UV mutations = bad and UV substitutions = good until the cows come home, but that isn't "detailing". What happens to DNA in both of those scenarios? How does a cell differentiate between good and bad bond cleavage? You already said that cells don't direct UV in some way to deliberately make beneficial substitutions, so it appears that they're still random.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more