Evolutionary heritage or ecological adaptation? Racism versus reality

My comment: In flies, “Mitochondrial replication, transcription, translation and respiration depend upon interactions between RNAs and proteins encoded in both genomes, and epistatic interactions between mitochondrial and nuclear polymorphisms are known to contribute to phenotypic and fitness variation within species [1]–[6].” That suggests ecological variation and nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations in all species are manifested in different human populations via pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated events.
I mentioned that likelihood in the following context of a 2013 review: “In flies, ecological and social niche construction can be linked to molecular-level cause and effect at the cellular and organismal levels via nutrient-dependent changes in mitochondrial tRNA and a nuclear-encoded tRNA synthetase. The enzyme enables attachment of an appropriate amino acid, which facilitates the reaction required for efficient and accurate protein synthesis (Meiklejohn et al., 2013).”
I also provided examples from other model organisms that show amino acid substitutions may link cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera. Thus, claims by evolutionary theorists about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity are antithetical to what is currently known about transgenerational epigenetic effects.
I’m not claiming that evolutionary theorists think mutations can explain Jewish and European origins via natural selection associated with any last universal common ancestor. However, I think any claims that involve undisclosed evolutionary events, which appear to begin with light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants, should be compared with what is currently known about RNA-mediated events — if only to stop to the pseudoscientific nonsense of ridiculous claims based on population genetics.
I apologize for being adamant about this. But already I can see — from the first comment on this news — that racism may enter the picture because theorists never realized skin color is a nutrient-dependent morphological trait, not the result of any mutation. That links other morphological and behavioral phenotypes in other species to nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated events and ecological adaptions, not to the mutations discussed in Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance.”
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is only troublesome when it’s attributed to mutations. Let’s stop doing that, shall we?
Excerpt 2: “This is, I think, the first evidence from whole human genomes that the most important wave of settlement from the Near East was most likely shortly after the Last Glacial Maximum  . . . and, notably, before the Neolithic transition—which is what researchers working on mitochondrial DNA have been arguing for some years,” Martin Richards, an archeogeneticist at the University of Huddersfield in the U.K., told The Scientist in an e-mail.
My comment: Who has been arguing that? The first evidence “…that the most important wave of settlement from the Near East was most likely shortly after the Last Glacial Maximum…” was published in January 2013, and companion papers linked a single base pair and one nutrient-dependent amino acid substitution from the mouse-to-human model of RNA-mediated receptor-mediated changes in morphology to differences in skin, teeth, hair, and mammary tissue. Anyone who argues against that fact may encounter opposition from serious scientists who understand what is currently known about RNA-mediated ecological adaptations.
Are others about to be attacked by researchers in Israel who understand how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations without the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists? See for example: Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans and the claim that: “Our principle aim in the lab is to attack scientific dogmas. Mainly, we aim to use powerful genetic tools to discover novel biological principles by which RNA affects formation and inheritance of complex traits.” That claim went missing in September 2014. Perhaps it drew unwanted attention to the lab. No matter, the short perspective: RNA and dynamic nuclear organization helped to clarify the fact that “…the interactions between pre-mRNA and proteins fine-tune alternative splicing in a manner that can gradually create new protein functionalities without the need to create additional genes and without affecting existing proteins [4-6].” Clearly, the focus on RNA-mediated events and amino acid substitutions that stabilize DNA in organized genomes will lead to a future in which no serious scientist reports results in terms of mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity.
What’s next? Are they going to force the evolutionary theorists to explain how Fragile X syndrome (FXS), which arises from interactive relationships among a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variant and the systems biology of neurogenic niche construction, can be linked to mutations and natural selection for intelligence in other modern human populations? If so, as I’ve already predicted several times in past blog posts, I think we will see the end of evolutionary theory by the end of this year. Too many people will be offended by those who continue to tout pseudoscientific nonsense as biological facts about RNA-mediated events become well-known.