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
Shapiro, JA. Rethinking the (im)possible in evolution (in press) Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. The author graciously provides an open access preprint of his…
I mention this only to note the likelihood that random mutations are not driving the disease processes — like Alzheimer’s and that proper nutrition and pheromone therapy offers hope to an aging population.
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.
Neuroscientists have known for many years precisely where the boundary lies between genetically predisposed attraction and learned associations in species from microbes to man.
Why didn’t geneticists or evolutionary theorists realize that random mutations do not cause adaptive evolution or that the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals and pheromones do cause adaptive evolution?
Nutrient chemicals cause ecological niches to form that enable interactions among the conspecifics of social niches. Nutrition and pheromones are both required for epigenetic effects on development of a neurogenic niche in the honeybee brain and a hypothalamic neurogenic niche in the mammalian brain.
The honeybee is an invertebrate model organism that exemplifies the vertebrate molecular mechanisms of evolution via pre-existing genetic variation, not random mutation, that are detailed here.