Humans individually evolve by..?

This 2020 UK evolutionary biology article was part of a “Fifty years of the Price equation” issue:

“Genetic and non-genetic inheritance usually produce a phenotype [the composite of an organism’s characteristics, including its developmental, biophysical, and behavioral traits] through a highly complex developmental process that also relies on many features of the world over which the parents have little, if any, control. As a consequence, the relationship between the phenotypes of parents and offspring, the offspring–parent distribution, can take on many forms and vary from one place or time to another.

The extension of transmission and quantitative genetic models retain the assumption that the relationship between inheritance and phenotypic variation is such that it is sufficient to focus on the transmissibility of inherited variants or additive variance rather than phenotype development.

The concept of heredity as a developmental process is a more significant departure from traditional notions of inheritance. The mechanisms of non-genetic inheritance, such as parental behaviour, do not only affect the parent–offspring resemblance, but also the generation of variation and individual fitness.

Any feature of the parents, including their DNA sequence, physiology and behaviour can carry information about the conditions that the offspring will encounter. That this information content itself must be an evolving property is perhaps most evident when heredity is viewed as a developmental process; a developmental perspective is particularly useful when the aim is to study how the evolutionary process itself is evolving.”

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2019.0366 “Different perspectives on non-genetic inheritance illustrate the versatile utility of the Price equation in evolutionary biology”


This article and the “Fifty years of the Price equation” issue’s other articles had numerous mentions of individual evolution and behavior. They acknowledged “a diversity of perspectives” but I didn’t see my 2015 page’s perspective that it’s up to each individual to mold their own phenotype. In it, the Price equation prompted the question:

“How does a phenotype influence its own change?”

which I applied to a person individually evolving.

The article and the issue’s other articles tinkered with equations, and cited plant, animal, and human studies with frameworks that didn’t include investigating causes for the observed effects. These often wasted resources by providing solutions that addressed symptoms instead of addressing the uninvestigated causes.

For example, I didn’t see any mentions of how an individual’s pain may drive their phenotype. Pain induced by threats to survival are common parts of animal experiments that create and investigate phenotypes of epigenetic responses to stressors.

Regarding possible human applicability, how can a person remedy their undesirable traits and acquire desirable traits without addressing a root cause?

Unlike animals, people can therapeutically resolve underlying causes without the timing, duration, and intensity of efforts being externally determined. A human’s efforts to change their phenotype don’t have to mimic animal studies’ forcible approaches with drugs, etc., directed on someone else’s schedule. Addressing pain may be required for such efforts.


The article also promoted an outdated paradigm of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance:

“The transgenerational stability of some epigenetic states may fall within the same range as the stability of behaviours that are learnt from parents. Quantifying the environmental sensitivity and transgenerational stability of epigenetic variation has emerged as a major research focus over the past decade.”

As explained in Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of thyroid hormone sensitivity:

“Observing the same phenotype in each generation is NOT required for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to exist. Animal transgenerational studies have shown that epigenetic inheritance mechanisms may both express different phenotypes for each generation, and entirely skip a phenotype in one or more generations.”

Considering only “transgenerational stability of epigenetic variation” as proof will misinterpret this supporting evidence.

Wander into creativity?

This 2019 US study investigated the context of creative ideas:

“Creative inspiration routinely occurs during moments of mind wandering. Approximately 20% of ideas occurred in this manner.

Although ideas that occurred while participants were both on task and mind wandering did not differ in overall quality, there were several dimensions on which they did consistently differ. Ideas that occurred while mind wandering were reported to be experienced with a greater sense of ‘aha’ and were more likely to involve overcoming an impasse.

The present findings are consistent with the view that spontaneous task-independent mind wandering represents a source of the inventive ideas that individuals have each day. This potential function of mind wandering may help to explain why a mental state that can be associated with significant negative outcomes is nevertheless so ubiquitous.”

“Would you say the idea felt like an ‘aha!’ moment?” and “How creative do you feel the idea was?” were the closest items to emotional measures. “How important do you think this idea is?” and several months later “How important has the idea proven to be overall?” were used to measure importance.

https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/schooler/jonathan/sites/labs.psych.ucsb.edu.schooler.jonathan/files/pubs/0956797618820626.pdf “When the Muses Strike: Creative Ideas of Physicists and Writers Routinely Occur During Mind Wandering”

I came across this study from its reference in How Productivity Apps Can Make Us Less Productive (And Less Happy).


The study’s design missed opportunities to discover sources of creative ideas and feelings of importance. It focused on effects and intentionally disregarded causes, despite asserting that “mind wandering represents a source of inventive ideas.”

Experiments were subjectively biased for a framework that considered ideas as originating solely from a person’s thinking brain. A framework that demonstrated how ideas may arise as defenses against feelings wasn’t considered, although relevant.

Let’s use the finding “Ideas that occurred while mind wandering were more likely to involve overcoming an impasse” as an example for the alternative framework’s view:

  1. A person who has a seemingly unsolvable work problem probably encounters feelings of helplessness.
  2. Staying busy with tasks can distract them from these feelings.
  3. During times of less cognitive activity, though, these feelings can have more impetus.
  4. The resultant discomfort will trigger ideas to help ward off helpless feelings.

Regarding importance judgments, there are many needs a person develops and tries to satisfy as substitutes for real needs that weren’t fulfilled. I’ve focused on the need to feel important in blog posts such as Your need to feel important will run your life, and you’ll never feel satisfied.

Using oxytocin receptor gene methylation to pursue an agenda

A pair of 2019 Virginia studies involved human mother/infant subjects:

“We show that OXTRm [oxytocin receptor gene DNA methylation] in infancy and its change is predicted by maternal engagement and reflective of behavioral temperament.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6795517 “Epigenetic dynamics in infancy and the impact of maternal engagement”

“Infants with higher OXTRm show enhanced responses to anger and fear and attenuated responses to happiness in right inferior frontal cortex, a region implicated in emotion processing through action-perception coupling.

Infant fNIRS [functional near-infrared spectroscopy] is limited to measuring responses from cerebral cortex..it is unknown whether OXTR is expressed in the cerebral cortex during prenatal and early postnatal human brain development.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187892931830207X “Epigenetic modification of the oxytocin receptor gene is associated with emotion processing in the infant brain”


Both studies had weak disclosures of limitations on their findings’ relevance and significance. The largest non-disclosed contrary finding was from the 2015 Early-life epigenetic regulation of the oxytocin receptor gene:

These results suggest that:

  • Blood Oxtr DNA methylation may reflect early experience of maternal care, and
  • Oxtr methylation across tissues is highly concordant for specific CpGs, but
  • Inferences across tissues are not supported for individual variation in Oxtr methylation.

This rat study found that blood OXTR methylation of 25 CpG sites couldn’t accurately predict the same 25 CpG sites’ OXTR methylation in each subject’s hippocampus, hypothalamus, and striatum (which includes the nucleus accumbens) brain areas. Without significant effects in these limbic system structures, there couldn’t be any associated behavioral effects.

But CpG site associations and correlations were deemed good in the two current studies because they cited:

“Recent work in prairie voles has found that both brain- and blood-derived OXTRm levels at these sites are negatively associated with gene expression in the brain and highly correlated with each other.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453018306103 “Early nurture epigenetically tunes the oxytocin receptor”

The 2018 prairie vole study – which included several of the same researchers as the two current studies – found four nucleus accumbens CpG sites that had high correlations to humans. Discarding one of these CpG sites allowed their statistics package to make a four-decimal place finding:

“The methylation state of the blood was also associated with the level of transcription in the brain at three of the four CpG sites..whole blood was capable of explaining 94.92% of the variance in Oxtr DNA methylation and 18.20% of the variance in Oxtr expression.”

Few limitations on the prairie vole study findings were disclosed. Like the two current studies, there wasn’t a limitation section that placed research findings into suitable contexts. So readers didn’t know researcher viewpoints on items such as:

  • What additional information showed that 3 of the 30+ million human CpGs accurately predicted specific brain OXTR methylation and expression from saliva OXTR methylation?
  • What additional information demonstrated how “measuring responses from cerebral cortex” although “it is unknown whether OXTR is expressed in the cerebral cortex” provided detailed and dependable estimates of limbic system CpG site OXTR methylation and expression?
  • Was the above 25-CpG study evidence considered?

Further contrast these three studies with a typical, four-point, 285-word limitation section of a study like Prenatal stress heightened adult chronic pain. The word “limit” appeared 6 times in that pain study, 3 times in the current fNIRS study, and 0 times in the current maternal engagement and cited prairie vole studies.

Frank interpretations of one’s own study findings to acknowledge limitations is one way researchers can address items upfront that will be questioned anyway. Such analyses also indicate a goal to advance science.

An out-of-date review of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance

This December 3, 2019, French review title was “Transgenerational Inheritance of Environmentally Induced Epigenetic Alterations during Mammalian Development”:

“We attempt to summarize our current knowledge about the transgenerational inheritance of environmentally induced epigenetic changes. While the idea that information can be inherited between generations independently of the DNA’s nucleotide sequence is not new, the outcome of recent studies provides a mechanistic foundation for the concept.

The systematic resetting of epigenetic marks between generations represents the largest hurdle to conceptualizing epigenetic inheritance. Our understanding of the rates and causes of epimutations remains rudimentary.

Environmental exposure to toxicants could promote changes in germline cells at any developmental stage, with more dramatic effects being observed during embryonic germ cell reprogramming. Epigenetic factors and their heritability should be considered during disease risk assessment.”


The review showed an inexplicable lack of thorough research. 2017 was its latest citation of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance studies from the Washington State University labs of Dr. Michael Skinner. I’ve curated six of the labs’ 2019 studies!

  1. Transgenerational diseases caused by great-grandmother DDT exposure;
  2. Another important transgenerational epigenetic inheritance study;
  3. The transgenerational impact of Roundup exposure;
  4. Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance mechanisms that lead to prostate disease;
  5. A transgenerational view of the rise in obesity; and
  6. Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance extends to the great-great-grand offspring.

This lack led to – among other items – equivocal statements where current definitive evidence could have been cited. The review was submitted to the publisher on October 31, 2019, and the above studies were available.


The publisher provided insight into the peer review process via https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/8/12/1559/review_report:

  • Peer reviewer 1: “Taking into account that this is not my main area of expertise..Do the authors really believe in that?”
  • Peer reviewer 2 provided a one-paragraph non-review.
  • Peer reviewer 3: “The authors are missing a large sector of what types of environmental factors can influence methylation and do not acknowledge that other sources exist.”

The authors responded with changes or otherwise addressed peer reviewer comments.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/8/12/1559/htm “Transgenerational Inheritance of Environmentally Induced Epigenetic Alterations during Mammalian Development”

A GWAS meta-analysis of two epigenetic clocks

This 2019 UK human study conducted a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of two epigenetic clocks using 13,493 European-ancestry individuals aged between ten and 98 years:

“Horvath-EAA, described in previous publications as ‘intrinsic’ epigenetic age acceleration (IEAA), can be interpreted as a measure of cell-intrinsic ageing that exhibits preservation across multiple tissues, appears unrelated to lifestyle factors, and probably indicates a fundamental cell ageing process that is largely conserved across cell types.

In contrast, Hannum-EAA, referred to in previous studies as ‘extrinsic’ epigenetic age acceleration (EEAA), can be considered a biomarker of immune system ageing, explicitly incorporating aspects of immune system decline such as age-related changes in blood cell counts, correlating with lifestyle and health-span related characteristics, and thus yielding a stronger predictor of all-cause mortality.

The meta-analysis of Horvath-EAA identified ten independent associated SNPs [single nucleotide polymorphisms], doubling the number reported to date, and highlighted 21 genes involved in Horvath-based epigenetic ageing. Four of the ten Horvath-EAA-associated SNPs are mQTL [methylation quantitative trait loci] for CpGs used in the Horvath/Hannum epigenetic clocks. A possible interpretation of this is that the functional mechanism by which these SNPs influence the rate of biological ageing is via altering methylation levels.

Father’s age at death, a rough proxy for lifespan, was nominally significantly correlated with both EAA measures, and parents’ age at death was additionally correlated with Hannum-EAA. Aside from these, genetic correlations with age-related traits were surprisingly few: it is possible that this could reflect an overly conservative correction for the multiple tests carried out, or low statistical power, rather than a genuine lack of correlations.

Genetic correlation analysis should be restricted to GWAS with a heritability Z-score of 4 or more, on the grounds of interpretability and power, so the Horvath-based results particularly should be interpreted with caution.”


A non-apologetic way to explain the above graphic is that NONE of these 218 “health and behavioral traits” were any more associated with the studied genetic measurements than would be expected by chance!

Fervent believers in the GWAS methodology’s capability to exactly predict individual phenotypes eventually become victims of the scientific method. These GWAS researchers griped about “overly conservative correction, or low statistical power” and other predictable shortfalls, and ended a long limitations statement with:

“While we have identified a number of SNPs and genes significantly associated with EAA, including genes already known to be related to ageing, the analyses presented here fall short of providing a mechanistic explanation for how these variants and genes act to influence biological age.”

Outside of beliefs, it’s hard to understand why research money keeps pouring into the GWAS dead end. If these researchers and their employing institution and sponsors want to make a difference in human lives, they need to get busy in other areas.

These researchers were employed by the same institution that couldn’t be bothered to scrape together six more weeks of funds to study the transgenerational damaging effects of acetaminophen – an analgesic available to billions of people – in Epigenetics research that was designed to fall one step short of wonderful.

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008104 “A meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of epigenetic age acceleration”

PNAS politics in the name of science

This 2019 Germany/Canada human fetal cell study was a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America direct submission:

“In a human hippocampal progenitor cell line, we assessed the short- and long-term effects of GC [glucocorticoid] exposure during neurogenesis on messenger RNA expression and DNA methylation profiles. Our data suggest that early exposure to GCs can change the set point of future transcriptional responses to stress by inducing lasting DNAm changes.”


The study’s basic finding was that cells had initial responses to stressors that primed them for subsequent stressors. Since this finding wasn’t new, the researchers tried to make it exciting by applying it to novel contexts that were yet circumscribed by official paradigms.

Hypothesis-seeking associations of human fetal hippocampal cell behaviors with human behaviors were flimsy stretches, as were correlations to placental measurements. These appeared to have been efforts to find headline-making effects.

There wasn’t even a hint of the principle described in Epigenetic variations in metabolism:

“Because of the extreme interconnectivity of cell regulatory networks, even at the cellular level, predicting the impact of a sequence variant is difficult as the resultant variation acts:

  • In the context of all other variants and
  • Their potential additive, synergistic and antagonistic interactions.

This phenomenon is known as epistasis.”

It would have condemned pet models of reality to admit that a cell exists in multiple contexts of other cells with potential additive, synergistic, and antagonistic interactions.

A research proposal to trace a specific cell type’s behaviors – while isolated from their extremely interconnected networks – to trillion-celled human behaviors would be rejected in less-politicized organizations.

Sanctioned speculations manifested in this paper with phrases such as “although not significant..” and “although not directly tested..” The study’s title was probably a disappointment in that it conformed to the study’s evidence.

Involvements of psychiatry departments at the pictured Kings College, Harvard, etc., as part of PNAS entrenched politics, retard advancements of science past approved paradigms.

This is my final curation of PNAS papers.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/08/08/1820842116.full.pdf “Glucocorticoid exposure during hippocampal neurogenesis primes future stress response by inducing changes in DNA methylation”

Would you return a lost wallet?

The researchers in this 2019 Swiss/US study intentionally “lost” > 17,000 wallets under experimental conditions:

“We conducted field experiments in 40 countries to examine whether people act more dishonestly when they have a greater economic incentive to do so, and we found the opposite to be true. Citizens were more likely to return wallets that contained relatively larger amounts of money. Neither nonexperts nor professional economists were able to predict this result.

When people stand to heavily profit from engaging in dishonest behavior, the desire to cheat increases but so do the psychological costs of viewing oneself as a thief.”


The study did well in some aspects, including publicity. However:

1. The researchers admitted in the final paragraph:

“Using average reporting rates across countries, we find substantial variation in rates of civic honesty, ranging from 14 to 76%. This variation largely persists even when controlling for a country’s gross domestic product, suggesting that other factors besides a country’s wealth are also at play.”

Yet the paper’s first page contained the above graphic, which used each country’s GDP as a dependent variable! Wasn’t a behavioral economics study of honesty required to present their data honestly, and use factors that were experimentally significant?

2. “Other factors..at play” were relegated to the supplementary materials. The paper was only three-and-a-half pages long, so there was room for further explanations.

Here’s one comment on cultural differences from a Chinese PhD student:

“Biased design. In China (and Asian countries), people seldom use email, and our merit is to leave things untouched (“路不拾遗“:no one picks up lost articles in the street (idiom)).”

3. The study design had nothing to do with avoiding taxes, but three of the four sentences in the paper’s first paragraph did. This impressed as pointless.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/70 “Civic honesty around the globe” (not freely available)