The wrong picture of our evolution
“We have built a picture of our evolution based on the morphology of fossils and it was wrong.”
I’ve repeatedly cited the latest literature, especially in the context of Skull 5. The article linked below is another clear representation of how the wrong picture of our evolution was built via a series of misrepresentations that ignored biological constraints while theorists touted mutation-initiated natural selection. Why don’t they simply admit that they are wrong, so others can move on? Fifty years of their nonsense must end!
Dobzhansky (1964): “…the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!”
Dobzhansky (1972): “Reproductive isolation evidently can arise with little or no morphological differentiation.”
By the time that Dobzhansky (1973) wrote: Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, evolutionary theorists had convinced themselves that they could make sense of evolution via observations of morphological differences. Their theories have become ever more ridiculous, culminating with the snake-centric theory of human evolution.
31 December 2013 Last updated at 06:54 ET
By Professor Clive Finlayson Director, Gibraltar Museum
I reiterate: “We have built a picture of our evolution based on the morphology of fossils and it was wrong.”
See also: A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo
My comments to the Science site:
James V. Kohl
In all cases of thermodynamically controlled organism-level thermoregulation, which is required for adaptive evolution, the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones establishes the social niche in the context of morphologically similar conspecifics. Nutrient availability and pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution then enable neurogenic niche construction exemplified in nematodes.
Additional neurogenic niche construction enables socio-cognitive niche construction in eusocial insects, as exemplified in the honeybee model organism. The honeybee model organism links nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled behavior and brain development from invertebrates to vertebrates.
Extension of this model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution across species should surprise no one. Even the location where skull 5 was found will be only mildly surprising to readers of Greg Bear’s science fiction novels: Darwin’s Radio and Darwin’s Children. His story about the evolution of a new species of human began in Georgia, like the story of skull 5.
But obviously, Greg Bear was toying with his readers. He had individuals of the NEW human species from Georgia communicating with pheromones, when it has become perfectly clear that all humans have been communicating with pheromones for many years, just like every other species on the planet. Skull 5 exemplifies the fact that olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans
The concept that is extended is the epigenetic tweaking of immense gene networks in ‘superorganisms’ that solve problems through the exchange and the selective cancellation and modification of signals. Simply put, human skulls were tweaked; they are not the mutated skulls of another species.
That article: “Past 5,000 years prolific for changes to human genome” may now be placed into the context of Skull 5 to help explain the “Creationist” perspective to those who still believe in mutation-initiated natural selection despite the fact that mutations theory was never scientifically substantiated with biologically-based experimental evidence.
If what we’re now seeing with the variants in the skulls from Georgia is simply evidence of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution, the variations can be placed into the context of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled “biological embedding” of variations in other species (i.e., all of them).
For example, five hundred species of stickleback fish that appear to have adaptively evolved during the past 15,000 years via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated changes in morphology controlled by the metabolism of the nutrients to species-specific pheromones can be placed into the context of the physiology of reproduction that is both nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
For example, in my model, subtle alterations in the nutrient-dependent thermodynamics of intercellular signaling and stochastic gene expression enable the morphological adaptations across species that include differences in Skull 5.
Transgenerational epigenetic effects on these alterations must extend to organism-level thermoregulation to affect species diversity.
In a report published earlier this year, the diversity I attribute to thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation appears to originate in male gametes of mice.
Receptors involved in sugar and amino acid sensing in taste cells and in the gastrointestinal tract are also expressed in testis and sperm. The genetic absence of these receptors leads to male-specific sterility in a mammal. However, in the experiment, sterility was quickly reversed after clofibrate was removed from the diet. See: Mosinger et al (2013).
This may be the clearest indicator of how the nutrient-dependent molecular epigenetics of alternative splicings link the epigenetic ‘landscape’ to the physical landscape of DNA. The link now appears to include transgenerational epigenetic effects of diet on the de novo creation of “taste” and “smell” receptors in male gametes.
Predictably, this extends what we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article: “From fertilization to adult sexual behavior” from epigenetic effects in yeast to transgenerational epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input that alter 1) the physiology of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction, 2) morphological changes in the brain and body, which include skull morphology, and 3) the behavior of a single Homo species (sans mutation-initiated natural selection).
I do not think effects of a “mutation” in a single base pair (suggested elsewhere by David Marjanović) can be compared to epigenetic cause and effect across species. Thus, suggestions that the differences in skull morphology are somehow associated with a “mutation” in a base pair, instead of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled changes in a base pair, should be supported with experimental evidence.