Fossil evidence and DNA (revisited)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: December 7, 2013

The Denisova-Sima de los Huesos connection

The best explanation of why populations die out is that they have reached the limits of what ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction otherwise enables in the context of adaptations, diversity, and organismal complexity. This explains why mathematical models of population genetics are relatively useless.
Mathematics is not the way to represent the systems biology of how the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genome of any species. Mathematical models serve largely to confuse evolutionary theorists about cause and effect, which they therefore attribute to mutations — as in mutation-driven evolution.
Now, the fossil record and genetic evidence are clear indicators of the problem with evolutionary theory. There is no experimental evidence that indicates mutations cause evolution, which leaves evolutionary theorists confused — because their theories of mutation-initiated natural selection or cultural evolution are so confusing.
No one ever attempted to answer the question of what was naturally selected, or how. Yet, it becomes clear in the fossil record and in genetic evidence that adaptations are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man.
See for example of what has been attributed to random mutations: Lectures: 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Addendum: Ask yourself what contribution evolutionary theorists have made to the survival of our species. See also: Fossil evidence and DNA

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: