How Networks Are Revolutionizing Scientific (and Maybe Human) Thought By John Edward Terrell, Termeh Shafie and Mark Golitko | December 12, 2014 | Excerpt: “…evolutionary biologists are now modeling series of complex networked relationships at multiple levels ranging from individual “letters” in the genome to protein-gene networks to interaction networks between organisms, thereby demonstrating that our … Models by evolutionary biologists are not models
Signal and noise: Spike correlations in the olfactory system by John Hewitt Excerpt: “The olfactory system is not so much a hard-wired telephone network where channels can be instantaneously specified and connected by number codes, and then used to transmit further codes. There is significant overgrowth and back-pruning in olfactory networks during development, and some … Pulses of olfactory/pheromonal input
This is an open access article. Any advocate of adaptive evolution via random mutations can attempt to find evidence that I could not find by scanning it.
Is there a simpler “proof” that makes those who think that random mutations cause adaptive evolution appear even more ridiculous?
Shall we attribute to him the inability to see that metabolism and epigenetics converge with food odors and the metabolism of nutrient chemicals to pheromones that act on precisely the same molecular mechanisms of adaptive evolution found in species from microbes to man?
a model for adaptive evolution, for example, that is not nutrient chemical-dependent and pheromone-controlled?
the only thing wrong with mathematical models of cause and effect is that they attribute indirect genetic effects, direct genetic effects, and affects on behavior to something unknown
theorists argue that the 4.5 million interactive DNA switches in the human genome evolved via random mutations.
By the time you get to 4 or 5 million nutrient-chemical and pheromone-controlled DNA switches in the human genome