News article excerpt:
My comment: Does anyone else think that nutrient-dependent “ecological adaptation” is the term most appropriately used to replace the term “evolution” in the sentence above?
For example, there are 1180+ human hemoglobin variants that are directly linked to ecological variation, which includes elevation above sea level. If variants such as hemoglobin S are considered to be mutations, present-day animals of the Arctic region could best be intimately connected to ancestors with mutations that were somehow naturally selected to enable adaptations in subsequent generations. However, there is no model for that.
Alternatively, the human hemoglobin variants could be compared to the variants in other species, like deer mice (see my comment to Science) and hummingbirds that appear to have ecologically adapted (e.g., in the absence of any experimental evidence that suggests they evolved via accumulated beneficial mutations that were somehow naturally selected). The alternative is consistent with Dobzhansky’s Creationist/Evolutionist approach in his 1964 (pdf) and 1973 (pdf) published works. It is also consistent with the labels he [Dobzhansky, long before Kohl (unpublished)] attached to those unfamiliar with conserved molecular mechanisms of Creation in 1964 when he wrote: “The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!”
Current perspectives on evolution make me wonder if serious scientists are behind the recent change in the Israeli school system. Students in middle school will be taught about the theory of evolution so that it can be compared (e.g., earlier in life) to what they will learn is currently known about physics and chemistry in the context of the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically-constrained ecological adaptations.
This appears to be an attempt to ensure that future generations of Israeli researchers do not become bird-watchers and butterfly-collectors who might otherwise begin to tout the pseudoscientific nonsense of population geneticists and the theories they invented to replace Darwin’s accurate representations of his ‘conditions of life’ with the ridiculous theories of neo-Darwinian evolution.
At least one other cradle of ecological adaptation appears to have been recently discovered. However, it also appears to be a more “global” cradle in the context of snakes. Trophic divergence despite morphological convergence in a continental radiation of snakes. I hope that anyone who thinks they have found a cradle of evolution on this planet will report it to someone who can determine whether they are simply meaningfully interpreting what they think they have found in the context of a meaningless theory of evolution of cold-blooded snakes or other species that have ecologically adapted.