My comment: Serious scientists do not use math models to link atoms to ecosystems. They use what is known about physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms. Similarly, they do not introduce analogies or metaphors as substitutes for experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. Simply put, serious scientists are not neo-Darwinian theorists.
For example see this diagram: Extended Data Figure 3: Amino acid differences of major Or4 protein alleles (From) Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor
My comment: The de novo creation of nutrient exposure-dependent / nutrient energy-dependent olfactory receptor genes removes the holy grail of evolutionary biology (i.e., creation of new genes) from the ridiculous math models used by evolutionary theorists. They have not linked population genetics and assumptions about how long it would take for accumulated mutations to link the evolution of one species from another — as indicated in the example from mosquitoes — to the creation of the new genes. The new genes are required in the context of increasing organismal complexity, which links ecological variation to ecological adaptations in all living genera via the physiology of reproduction.
The mosquito example could be placed into the context of fossilized mosquitoes trapped in amber, which appear to be mosquitoes trapped in amber. If they were another insect species they still could not be linked to or from the evolution of mosquitoes via the Laws of Physics or anything known to serious scientists about chemistry or the conserved molecular mechanisms that link atoms to ecosystems in all living genera via the physiology of reproduction.
The physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction must link fixation of at least one amino acid substitution in the organized genomes of a species that offered the ancestral lineage protection from virus-driven entropy. For example, see Dobzhansky (1973)
Most significant similarities as well as differences have been brought to light. The cytochrome C of different orders of mammals and birds differ in 2 to 17 amino acids, classes of vertebrates in 7 to 38, and vertebrates and insects in 23 to 41; and animals differ from yeasts and molds in 56 to 72 amino acids. Fitch and Margoliash prefer to express their findings in what are called “minimal mutational distances.” It has been mentioned above that different amino acids are coded by different triplets of nucleotides in DNA of the genes; this code is now known.
My comment: The nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are clearly the bridge across what Fitch and Margoliash called “minimal mutational distances.” Without what I prefer to call a “bridge” that links atoms to ecosystems via energy-dependent changes in base pairs, theorists have nothing more than a ridiculous theory of how sudden energy jumps that de Vries called mutations might be linked to cell type differences in all cells of all individuals of all chimpanzees and modern humans compared to gorillas.
Instead, Dobzhansky (1973) also wrote:
…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 (p. 127).
In the context of what is known to serious scientists, manufacturing fossil evidence led pseudoscientists to make ridiculous claims about Piltdown Man
Scratches on the surfaces of the teeth, visible under the microscope, revealed that the teeth had been filed down to make them look human.
My comment: Obviously, pseudoscientists have learned their lesson about how to manufacture evidence that appears to fit the fossil record. They are manufacturing only skulls. They know that jaws with teeth are the link from nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction in primates to RNA-mediated events that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all primates. The RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link microRNAs from cell adhesion proteins to supercoiled DNA, which protects organized genomes from virus-driven entropy in species from microbes to humans.
Pseudoscientists have placed those links into the context of the fossil record, which is foolish.
When seen from the Dmanisi perspective, morphological diversity in the African fossil Homo record around 1.8 Ma probably reflects variation between demes of a single evolving lineage, which is appropriately named H. erectus. The hypothesis of multiple independent lineages (paleospecies) (15, 31) appears less parsimonious, especially in the absence of empirical evidence for adaptation to separate ecological niches.
(with my three comments), which was reported as: Ancient Georgian Ancestors (with my three comments)
“Skull 5” linked 1.8 Ma of ecological variation to ecological adaptations in the same lineage that has repeatedly been reported to link mutations and natural selection to the evolution of different primate species.
On 10/18/13 I wrote: 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.
On 12/2/14 this was published: The Bull Sperm MicroRNAome and the Effect of Fescue Toxicosis on Sperm MicroRNA Expression
On 5/12/15 this was published: Small non-coding RNAs transfer through mammalian placenta and directly regulate fetal gene expression
Taken together with more than 45000 other articles that are indexed on PubMed and that link the term “microRNA” to everything known about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera, anyone with plans to manufacture more fossil evidence will undoubtedly be met with challenges to place their manufactured evidence into the context of what is known to serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect.
Given what is currently known about links from nutrient-dependent microRNAs to adhesion proteins and supercoiled DNA that protects the organized genomes of all living genera from virus-driven entropy, math models seem to be an obvious waste of time. They are best used by bird-watchers and butterfly collectors, not by serious scientists who know how to link nutritional epigenetics to pharmagenomics via animal models that link human heath and pathology via RNA-mediated events and fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction.