Hypothesis & Theory ARTICLE
Excerpt: “…a detailed model of the epigenetic interaction and its relations with the cellular environment would be required, and this is still an open issue (24).”
Conclusion: “Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific ‘fit’.”
The model starts with nutrient-uptake and odor-induced de novo creation of receptors that allow nutrients to enter the cell. It links nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to the production of species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
The conserved molecular mechanisms of amino acid substitutions that stabilize DNA in organized genomes have since been linked to chromosomal rearrangements common in the context of ecological variation that leads to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations all cells of all individuals of all organisms.
If there is a model of evolutionary events linked to biologically-based increasing organismal complexity, it has not been mentioned so that it could be compared to this model of RNA-mediated events. If someone is concealing their model of biologically-based events and evolution, it may never be compared to the conserved molecular mechanisms that appear to result in ecological speciation, outside the context of mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity.
Summary: The issue of a detailed model may remain open if only due to the fear my model has instilled among evolutionary theorists who appear to have realized they have not modeled evolution in the context of nutrient-dependent evolutionary events. Kudos to those who have provided a mathematical model that also challenges the approach of population geneticist who invented neo-Darwinism and defined it in terms of DNA-mediated events associated with the pathology of perturbed protein folding, not biodiversity.