Evolutionary theorists and planetary destabilization: essay

Have evolutionary theorists caused planetary destabilization?

New study proposes solution to long-running debate as to how stable the Earth system is

News article excerpt: “…life controls aspects of the planet and in doing so maintains conditions that are suitable for widespread life despite shocks and perturbations. This hypothesis was and remains controversial in part because there is no understood mechanism by which such a planetary self-stabilising system could emerge.”

My comment: The planetary self-stabilising system emerges via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction. However, in our adaptively evolved niche, we are not sufficiently informed by biology.  We cannot avoid planetary destabilization because the mechanisms of homeostasis are not understood. The biological basis of planetary stabilization follows in the context of: The Emergence of Environmental Homeostasis in Complex Ecosystems

Article excerpt: “When the biotic force changes from positive to negative a homeostatic state is produced that is robust to a range of perturbations.”

My comment: In my model this robustness results from cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation. These seemingly futile cycles are thermodynamically controlled by epigenetic effects of nutrient uptake/acquisition on the nutrient-dependent microRNA/messenger RNA balance. The result is epigenetically-effected organism-level thermoregulation.

Article conclusion: “…it is interesting to speculate how robust this relationship between environmental complexity and stability is in our model if model complexity was incremented via adding additional environmental variables to stable systems. Such an approach would be similar to [48] that found sequential selection may provide an account for the emergence and persistence of homeostatic complex systems.”

My comment: It is more interesting to stop speculating and examine evolutionary theory in the context of homeostatic complex systems, which are obviously nutrient-dependent and somehow controlled. Homeostasis could not be achieved across the diversity of extant and extinct species if these homeostatic complex systems were not controlled. A context-dependent examination of evolutionary theory will someday result in acceptance of the fact that homeostasis is controlled by the sequential selection of nutrients and their metabolism to species-specific pheromones. Pheromones control reproduction in species from microbes to man, which is why they are important to examine in the context of planetary stabilization. This context-dependent examination attests to non-random robustness in my model of epigenetic cause and effect.

For example, the non-random sequential selection of nutrients, which is required for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction, is exemplified when organisms sequentially ingest heterospecifics but not conspecifics. Even in microbes, this requires the ability to recognize the difference between heterospecifics and conspecifics. That ability is dependent on the production of the species-specific chemical cues called pheromones, which result from the metabolism of nutrients.

Clearly this argument for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled planetary stabilization represents the required reciprocity that starts with genetic predisposition in unicellular organisms. Nutrients must be available to be metabolized by microbial organisms that produce pheromones that control their nutrient-dependent reproduction. This ‘circular’ argument, which begins at the cellular level in the first cell that ever reproduced, can be used to explain the robustness of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution in species from microbes to man. It is a factual approach that seems to have somehow escaped those whose poorly constructed socio-cognitive niches continue to include only speculation about the adaptive evolution of homeostatic complex systems without including biological facts.

Indeed, rarely is the change in the biotic force from positive to negative even considered in the context of our socio-cognitive niche construction. However, in this research journal article, which I hope will be discussed, it is considered in the context of “…a homeostatic state [that] is produced that is robust to a range of perturbations.” Finally, consideration has been given to biotic forces and to the required homeostatic states, which Darwin inferred were essential in his ‘conditions of life.’ For constrast, it will be interesting to see how much longer theorists consider mutations theory in the context of randomness, natural selection, and adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction that is exemplified in my model.

The problem for theorists is that if natural selection is random there is no model for homeostatic states. However, when natural selection occurs in the context of nutrient availability and the nutrients are metabolized to pheromones that control reproduction, there is a model for homeostasis. It’s my model of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. The article linked above even seems to inadvertently allude to my model.

Article excerpt: “Being alive necessitates affecting environmental conditions if only because being alive necessitates running a metabolism and consequently the export of high entropy waste into the environment [27].”

My comment: In the above statement, adaptive evolution starts with the lives of cells. Running a cellular metabolism is nutrient-dependent as is the production of pheromones, which can be considered in the context of high entropy waste that controls cellular and organism-level reproduction. In my model, when nutrient-dependent high entropy waste epigenetically effects the intracellular signaling and internuclear interactions required for the nutrient-dependent, stochastic, de novo creation of genes — and thus for adaptive evolution — mutations theory is eliminated from further consideration.

In the context of the homeostasis that’s required, uncontrolled mutations don’t fit into any model of selection or any model of homeostasis. For example, mutations are disorganized and entropic. They can only lead to more entropy. Entropy does not lead to positive changes in thermodynamic effects on organization and organism-level thermoregulation of increasingly complex genomes.

Besides, entropy cannot be automagically reversed to enable peppered moths to change their color from light to dark and back. Thus, in the context of adaptive evolution and the widely used example of the peppered moth theory of predation-driven natural selection, I think that mutations theory can be dismissed from the perspective of physics and from the perspective of biology. However, since mutations theory was inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately) incorporated into a bastardized version of Darwinian Theory and natural selection via predation in peppered moths, it is appropriate to first ask evolutionary theorists: “Is there a model for that?”

My antagonists continue to ignore my model of natural selection in moths. For example, I wrote:

“…using marked adults released at a central point and recaptured in traps progressively
distant from it, he showed that male moths could move an average of about 2km per night.‘

“the feathered antennae of male moths from the Saturniidae, Lasiocampidae and many other families are so sensitive that they can detect the pheromones of female moths from distances of up to 2 km (1.2 mi) away.”

Detection of female pheromones from 2km away and movement of 2km per night might appear to be merely a coincidental correlate of industrial melanism-driven evolution to anyone who does not know that nutrient acquisition leads to changes in the thermodynamics of morphogenesis, which includes color change. However, for those who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of organization required to link sensory cause to epigenetic effects on adaptive evolution, the 2km per night movement and ability to sense female pheromones from 2km away would indicate epigenetic cause and effect, not coincidental correlation. It would also represent nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution, and there’s a model for that. The model does not require natural selection by predation and it does not require a visual stimulus for the male moths. Nutrient-dependent pheromone production is required.

See, for example: Pheromones: a new term for a class of biologically active substances

Some people still consider my model only in the context of a hypothesis that needs support.

In order to support your hypothesis, you’d have to show a causal, reversible relationship between the pollutants and pheromones produced.

My response: This simple-minded anonymous fool ignores the facts that support my model, which he insultingly refers to as a hypothesis. Then, instead of addressing any aspect of the ridiculous theory of mutation-caused evolution (e.g., the gene responsible for the color change), he wants me to explain the reversal of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled color change, so I will. 

The reversal of the color change occurred with reduced industrial pollution. The reduced pollution largely eliminated the lead and manganese deposits from the leaves the moth larva ate. Nutrient-dependent adult development then led adults to change to the lighter color. Duh! This also indicates that the original change to the darker color was nutrient-dependent and controlled by the adult female pheromones. This shows what epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input can do in the context of developmental aspects of adaptive evolution (e.g, in forward and reverse). Meanwhile, only an anonymous fool has commented on the fact that a widely used example of what has typically been touted as ‘natural selection’ by predation is one of the most ridiculous misrepresentations of biological facts that I have ever encountered.

For example, I’ve mentioned Feierman before because when people like Feierman regurgitate this garbage: “…natural selection crafted these nutrients for the benefit of the species in which they reside…,”and no one challenges them, it shows how foolish theorists and their minions have consistently remained under-informed. Even when faced with unequivocal evidence (i.e., detailed in my model) that Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, these fools simply regurgitate more garbage, like: “…natural selection is never for nutrients.”

Let’s now accept Feierman’s statement that “… natural selection is never for nutrients” and thus his inference that the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones does not control reproduction. Now we have what many people understand in the context of natural selection via predation in the peppered moth. Given their current understanding, few people see the need to learn about biology and incorporate biological facts into their representations of adaptive evolution. Perish that thought, and thank Feierman for helping you to do so. Only someone like him could ignore what I have consistently portrayed (and refuse to post my responses to him to the human-ethology group):

I wrote: Detection of female pheromones from 2km away and movement of 2km per night might appear to be merely a coincidental correlate of industrial melanism-driven evolution to anyone who does not know that nutrient acquisition leads to changes in the thermodynamics of morphogenesis, which includes color change. However, for those who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of organization required to link sensory cause to epigenetic effects, the 2km per night movement and ability to sense female pheromones from 2km away are indicators of epigenetic cause and effect. The 2km movement of individuals represents how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution occurs, and there’s a model for that.

Is anyone willing to address the facts from their ridiculous perspective on mutations, natural selection and/or adaptive evolution? The anonymous fool wrote: “I’ve previously brought up the genomic study showing the change in the gene responsible for the color change…” So what?

Feierman just brought up the ridiculous example of the peppered moth in the context of “Natural selection, intelligent design, or epigenetic effects?” I’ve repeatedly attempted discussion of these things with him and others. Does anyone else think I should continue to address everything they bring up? What limits can I be expected to place on how ridiculous their perspective is in the context of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life,’ which are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man?

I think I’ve already addressed nearly all the ridiculous comments of the past and present in my model.  I think that’s why my model is not being discussed and why anonymous fools and Feierman are simply regurgitating more garbage. Simply put, once you are fed enough garbage in the context of theory, it’s unlikely that you will ever examine biological facts. It is precisely that garbage-in garbage-out approach to the statistical analyses of biological facts that led to the bastardization of Darwin’s theory and continues to lead to planetary destabilization. The honeybee model organism of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution exemplifies what the evolutionary theorists have contributed both to theory and to planetary destabilization!

Subscribe

Login

Notify of

new follow-up comments new replies to my comments

Label

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

Label

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

0 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: