Skull 5: Similarities spur a radical rewrite of human evolution (revisited)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: October 19, 2013

Comments I included in Similarities spur a radical rewrite of human evolution have since been posted to the Science Magazine site. Given the importance of Skull 5 to the refutation of mutation-initiated natural selection and speciation, I expected more discussion than has occurred in the following venues.
The Scientist
Science (journal article)
Science (summary)
The Guardian
It may be time for an attempt to summarize what’s known about the importance of Skull 5, before its importance is summarily dismissed by the evolutionary theorists and others who seem blind when it comes to accurate representations of biological facts, like the representation that follow:
Single species facts vs theory
“A chronospecies is a group of one or more species derived from a sequential development pattern which involves continual and uniform changes from an extinct ancestral form on an evolutionary scale. This sequence of alterations eventually produces a population which is physically, morphologically, and/or genetically distinct from the original ancestors. Throughout this change, there is only one species in the lineage at any point in time, as opposed to cases where divergent evolution produces contemporary species with a common ancestor.”
Skull 5 is a complete skull  that proves Homo has been one highly adaptable regionally variable chronospecies during the past 2.6 million to 10,000 years (i.e., the Paleolithic era).  This means  that experimentally unvalidated opinions, which typically incorporate Haldane’s ideas about mutation-initiated natural selection (e.g., mutation-driven evolution), will remain an embarrassment to anyone who accepted those ideas as if they were based on biological facts.
We should, however, withhold the expression of our sympathy from theorists — who have just lost to Skull 5 — the only theory they ever had. Our condolences should be expressed only to those who think their theory is not lost. For some of them, there is one question about the difference between their theories and biological facts that must still be answered.
What happened to our  species 10,000 years ago that enabled us to be fruitful and rapidly multiply beginning with the geological advent of the Holocene?
The answer to that question comes, in part, from a Nov 28, 2012 article published in “Nature. It told about the use of deep sequencing that  located and dated approximately one million single-nucleotide variants in the genomes of 6,500 African and European Americans.  Nidhi  Subbarman reported: “The findings confirm their earlier work suggesting that the majority of variants, including potentially harmful ones, were picked up during the past 5,000–10,000 years.”
Is there a model for that?
My model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution explains how the majority of those variants “… were picked up during the past 5,000–10,000 years.” Model organisms exemplify that what happened to differentiate our chronospecies from its lineage also differentiated every species that has ever existed on this planet. What happened began with a change in their ecological niche.
Ecological niche construction
In any ecological niche, all genetic variants are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which is consistent with Darwin’s theory, but not with the bastardization of his theory by comparatively simple-minded ideas about mutation-caused effects. Darwin clearly stated that ‘conditions of life‘ should be given first priority before proceeding with claims about how natural selection occurred.  He was ignored!  We know that Darwin’s conditions of life are nutrient-dependent. Anyone could have guessed that, even if, like Darwin, they had never heard about genetics.
Epigenetic effects
We also know that epigenetic effect on genes are responsible for variants and population-wide adaptations.  Those adaptations are obviously nutrient-dependent since organisms must eat to adapt.  Nutrients metabolize to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction in species from microbes to man.
Pheromone-controlled reproduction
The pheromone-controlled physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction links chronospecies like Homo and all other extant species, to a sequential development pattern. The pattern is clearly one that involves continual and uniform changes, not one that involves mutations and disease. The nutrient-dependent changes occur and are manifested in ancestral forms found in the fossil record. The sequence of nutrient-dependent alterations  produces a population that is genetically, morphologically, and therefore physically distinct from its ancestors. A few mutants among the fossils should never have been accepted as evidence that the mutations caused  the genetically, morphologically, and therefore the physically distinct features of any species. Instead, it should be clear that the nutrient-dependent changes incorporated the metabolism of the nutrients to species-specific pheromones that distinguish one population from another.
Epigenetic cause and effect
For example, since 1972, it has been clear that “Reproductive isolation evidently can arise with little or no morphological differentiation.” Since 1996, it has been clear that the conserved molecular mechanisms of alternative splicings enable the epigenetic ‘landscape’ to become the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of all species that have ever existed.
What is not clear is why anyone thinks that any species of Homo mutated into existence or automagically arose from some other species during the past 2.6 million to 10,000 years.
Phylogeographic continuity
The phylogeographic continuity across continents can be readily explained in the context of ecological niche construction sans speciation. For example, nutrient-dependent changes in morphology, including skull morphology, are associated via a mouse model of a single base pair change and single amino acid substitution that results in thicker hair, changes in skin glands and mammary tissue, and changes in the teeth of a human population. Supposedly, this population adaptively evolved in what is now central China during the past ~30 K years (Kamberov et al 2013 and Grossman et al 2013).
Finding other examples of what appears to be nutrient-dependent morphogenesis in other species is not difficult, and the morphogenic changes are controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control social niche construction and reproduction. Along an evolutionary continuum that extends from ecological and social niche construction to neurogenic niche construction and socio-cognitive niche construction, which is epigenetically linked to skull morphology via changes in teeth, it becomes clearer that other differences in skulls are nutrient-dependent and their population-wide expression is the result of pheromone-controlled reproduction.
Mutation-initiated natural selection and species diversification is not a consideration.
Phylogeographic continuity across continents with minimal natural variations in skull morphology is expected via its association with differences in nutrients (ecological niches) and their metabolism to pheromones (social niches) that control nutrient-dependent reproduction in species from microbes to man.
In his response to claims made with supporting citations to Kamberov et al 2013 and Grossman et al 2013, David Marjanović claimed that the base pair change, which occurred in a human population that arose during the past ~30,000 years in what is now central China, was a mutation. He wrote, “There, I’m sorry to say, goes your whole point.” Simply put,  Marjanović claims that a nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled change in a base pair, which leads to a single amino acid substitution and changes in morphology associated with the nutrient-dependent production of species-specific pheromones, should be called a mutation. He seems anxious to dismiss the entirety of my model and return to a theory of mutation-initiated natural selection. If we refer to all nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions as mutations,  he and others like him can continue to tout their experimentally unvalidated theories, which are based on mathematical calculations not biological facts.
Many academics have done the math, but have not learned about the biology, as is consistent with the support of the uninformed masses. This support spews forth in regurgitated claims that mutations somehow do something, despite the accumulation of biological facts that are clearly exemplified by the Skull 5 research report. Those biological facts have also been reported as other discoveries.
All recent discoveries attest to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution in every experiment performed on any species that ever existed in any nutrient-dependent ecological niche and pheromone-controlled social niche.
That was my point; the one Marjanović just dismissed! Clearly others will also dismiss any point that involves experimental evidence taken to a conclusion that refutes evolutionary theory by incorporating biological facts. However, now the report on Skull 5 must be dismissed by theorists along with the following conclusion.
Conclusion: The de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes links the sensory environment directly from the epigenetic “landscape” to the physical landscape of DNA and the de novo creation of species-specific pheromones controls reproduction.
Further reading:
Nei (2013)Mutation-Driven Evolution “…natural selection is an evolutionary process initiated by mutation. It does not have any creative power…”
Islamic Creationist: “Evolutionists Cannot Account for the Origin of the Sense of Smell” in “The Miracles Of Smell And Taste
Kohl (2012) “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans.”

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: