No excuses: Creation and the meaning of organismal complexity

(click to enlarge)

E.O. Wilson On ‘The Meaning Of Human Existence’

Excerpt: “We’re one species — glorious though we are — we are just one species out of an estimated eight million,” Wilson said. “At the present time, we only know almost exactly two million species — enough to give them a scientific name. Six million species are out there, maintaining the planet for us as an autonomous ecosystem and stabilization system.

Book Excerpt: ‘The Meaning of Human Existence’

“Six million species are out there, maintaining the planet for us as an autonomous ecosystem and stabilization system. With our own eyes we can see through the dark glass, fulfilling Paul’s prophecy, “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” Our place and meaning, however, are not being revealed as Paul expected—not at all. Let’s talk about that, let us reason together.”
My comment: Our place and meaning continue to be revealed as Paul expected. The revelations come precisely as stated by Paul in Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse:

The invisible things that occur link atoms to ecosystems via what is currently known about physics, chemistry, and molecular epigenetics. There is no excuse for E.O. Wilson’s philosophical approach to biophysically-constrained ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man. He simply ignores what has been learned by serious scientists about nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation.  What’s been learned attests to Paul’s reasonable claims each time something new is revealed about increasing organismal complexity. For example, it has become perfectly clear that RNA-mediated events link ecological variation to ecological adaptations via amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all species. There is nothing random about that. Those who claim that the amino acid substitutions are involve mutations ignore the fact that nothing except food is naturally selected.
In Arrival of the Fittest: Solving Evolution’s Greatest Puzzle, Andreas Wagner credits Nature and natural selection for evolution via metabolism and nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions, which obviously differentiate cell types in all cells of all individuals of all species. However, he also repeatedly cites statistical analyses that show increasing organismal complexity does not evolve. Morphological and behavioral phenotypes are manifestations of nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations. See the reviews of his book, which include: “Andreas Wagner is one of those rare scientists with the courage and intellect to see the real nature of evolution.’ — Frank Vertosick, author of When the Air Hits Your Brain ” Add mine: “Creationists will jump for joy as evolutionary theorists cry in their beers. Wagner links nutrient-dependent metabolism to cell type differentiation from brewer’s yeasts to mammals via the concerved molecular mechanisms of amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in all living species.” James V. Kohl (perfumingthemind.com) co-author of The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality.
As E.O. Wilson did in The Social Conquest of Earth, Andreas Wagner ignores the fact that all ecological adaptations are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Wilson wrote: “In contrast, human beings, along with monkeys, apes, and birds are among the rare life forms that are primarily audiovisual, and correspondingly weak in taste and smell. We are idiots compared with rattlesnakes and bloodhounds. Our poor ability to smell and taste is reflected in the small size of our chemosensory vocabularies…” (p. 269) Minimally, Wagner advance a more scientific perspective that attests to the fact that amino acid substitutions link the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes to experience-dependent changes in enzymes that link cell type metabolism to chemical communication among cells and also among the individuals of different species.
E.O. Wilson, and Andreas Wagner might benefit from revisiting Dobzhansky (1972) to again learn that “Reproductive isolation evidently can arise with little or no morphological differentiation.” (p. 665) The idea that birds or any other life forms are primarily audiovisual has never been supported by experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. For contrast, what’s been learned about olfaction in birds extends their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction to the conserved molecular mechanisms of amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements, which lead to the species diversity manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of birds. See for example: New insights into the hormonal and behavioural correlates of polymorphism in white-throated sparrows, Zonotrichia albicollis.
Did Wilson’s acclaimed historical perspective influence Wagner’s current perspectives on nutrient-dependent hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors? Clearly, one need only start by ignoring the pheromone-controlled physiology of insects to continue with claims that miss the link from nutrient uptake to the metabolism of nutrients and pheromone-controlled social behaviors in species from microbes to man. But first, perhaps these theorists need to stop claiming that mutations and or natural selection lead to the evolution of biodiversity. By starting over, they can learn what was intuitively obvious to Dobzhansky, and begin to read the current literature that accurately represents how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations via the metabolism of nutrients to sex differences in species-specific pheromones in invertebrates and vertebrates.
See for example: Genome of the house fly, Musca domestica L., a global vector of diseases with adaptations to a septic environment
Excerpt 1) “In comparison to D. melanogaster, the house fly genome has a larger number of genes associated with immune response, detoxification and chemosensation.”
Excerpt 2) As the obvious comparison for the M. domestica repertoire, D. melanogaster has 52 genes encoding OBPs [86], 60 genes encoding 62 ORs and 60 genes encoding 68 GRs via alternative splicing of some loci [87], and 65 genes encoding IRs [85].
The link from alternative splicings of pre-mRNA to cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions is not likely to become clearer than it is in the above excerpts. And null hypothesis testing is not likely to reveal that alternative splicings of pre-mRNA arise in the context of mutations and natural selection that supposedly lead to increasing organismal complexity via molecular mechanisms of perturbed protein folding that invariably lead to diseases and disorders, which are also caused by septic environments and global vectors of diseases that encourage ecological adaptations via extinction of species that do not adapt to ecological variation. However, I must point out the fact that (Z)-9-Tricosene is a sex pheromone produced by female house flies (Musca domestica) to attract males. In bees, it is one of the communication pheromones released during the waggle dance.[3] The article authors portray the link from chemoreceptors to gustation as if it were more important than the link from the nutrient-dependent de novo creation of odor receptors to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
For example, serious scientists recently reported that Humans Can Discriminate More than 1 Trillion Olfactory Stimuli. Our discriminatory abilties exemplify the link from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of all species.
From Kohl (2012): “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans (Keller et al., 2007; Kohl, 2007; Villarreal, 2009; Vosshall, Wong, & Axel, 2000).”
From Kohl (2013) “…the model represented here is consistent with what is known about the epigenetic effects of ecologically important nutrients and pheromones on the adaptively evolved behavior of species from microbes to man. Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific ‘fit’.”
What model of biologically-based cause and effect is E.O. Wilson offering us? What can he tell us about RNA-directed DNA methylation and cell type differentiation in ants for comparison to what is known in honeybees? See for example: Epigenomics and the concept of degeneracy in biological systems. It extends what is known about RNA-mediated events from ecological variation to ecological adaptations in primates.
Excerpt: “Deacon [27] gives the example of endogenous ascorbic acid synthesis (vitamin C) existent among some primate lineages and missing in others. All prosimians except Tarsiers synthesize ascorbic acid endogenously but anthropoid primates have lost this function. A shift in diet among anthropoid ancestors has led to a reliance on acquiring ascorbic acid from dietary sources such as fruit. Once food sources containing ascorbic acid were available in reliable and plentiful quantities, the gene responsible for endogenous ascorbic acid synthesis was no longer needed, became selectively neutral, and was free to accumulate mutations without deleterious outcomes for the organism. Mutational variants were no longer eliminated because exogenous ascorbic acid became regularly available. Selection began to operate not simply on genes for ascorbic acid synthesis but also across a distributed network of sensory biases, behavioural inclinations and digestive-metabolic mechanisms that increased the probability of obtaining ascorbic acid from the environment.”
Why hasn’t Wilson or Wagner linked nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentitation via amino acid substitutions to species diversity? Is it reasonable for Wilson or for Wagner to continue touting the pseudoscientific nonsense of theories that link mutations and natural selection to the evolution of biodiversity when serious scientists know that biodiversity is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man, including ants?
Is is reasonable for Wilson to cite Scripture outside its Biblical context, or for Wagner to ignore it (e.g., when he mentions creation), as a means to advance a philosophical approach? Is it reasonable for anyone to ignore the Islamic creationist’s book: The Miracles Of Smell And Taste and claim that Paul was also wrong about his revelations in the context of our place and meaning? Is it reasonable to ignore Dobzhansky’s creationist claim that “…the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla.” ?
Evolutionary theorists seem unable to grasp the fact that they continue to pit their nonsense against accurate representation of biologically-based cause and effect that epigenetically link one generation after another in species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms, which was indirectly addressed in the following passage from Jeremiah 31:29.
“In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” If the link to transgenerational epigenetic inheritance across species is not clear, perhaps this quote will help. “Every human is born into meanings that pervade the social sphere and his parents’ house even before his birth.” (p. 85)
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled transgenerational epigenetic inheritance attests to the power of hormone organization and activation across generations of invertebrates and vertebrates. But the examples from others species are equally clear. See: Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans
See also, the article and my comments on: The Nose Knows

Excerpt: Clear attestations to the plasticity of our olfactory system, which links ecological variation to ecological adaptations, now suggest that “adaptive evolution” should be called ecological adaptation. In the presence of food odors and nutrients that are metabolized to species-specific pheromones, which control the physiology of reproduction, ecological adaptation is what’s expected to occur.
My additional comment: Paul’s prophecy attests to the fact that we have learned what human existence means. It means there is no excuse for not being a creationist because everything currently known about physics, chemistry, and molecular biology attests to the invisible aspects of God’s creation. Wilson claims that humanity “…arose entirely on its own through an accumulated series of events during evolution.” It is not reasonable to believe such ridiculous claims in the absence of experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect, which is exemplified in the context of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions (see Wagner, 2014) and cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.
Those who remain unwilling to accept the fact that ecology must be their theology may continue to contribute what they think are meaningful diatribes, which may be accepted by uncritical reviewers. But others have learned how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations and that fact makes claims about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity meaningless. See also: Ecology is my theology

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: