12/12/2013 10:54 am by Walter M. Bortz II, M.D.
Excerpt: The appropriate term for this bottom’s up approach is “emergence,” in which the hierarchical level of choice is separate and distinct from those above and below and must be informed in situ rather than by extension. (5) A 747 or a lasagna or an elephant are examples of emergent creations that are not inexplicable by adding up their components.
My comment: In 2012, I concluded a review with this statement: “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans…” In 2013, I established the fact that ecological variation leads to increasing organismal complexity via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations.
My model links bottom-up epigenetic effects of nutrients to the de novo creation of genes and the top-down control of reproductive physiology in species from microbes to man. The molecular mechanism are detailed with examples from model organisms.
I am currently able to link specific nutrients to changes in intercellular signaling that result in the flipping of base pairs with effects on transcription and alternative splicings in pre-mRNA, which are clearly responsible for the amino acid substitutions that enable the de novo creation of genes and the expression of genes that benefit nutrient-dependent organism-level thermoregulation. The amino acid substitutions in the genes that are expressed clearly differentiate every cell type in every individual of every organism of every species.
Although it is perfectly clear that biophysical constraints on mutations prevent them from being fixed in the organized DNA of any organism, evolutionary theorists have continued to claim that my detailed model of epigenetic cause and effect is wrong, although it addresses all aspects of ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction.
1) Jay R. Feierman: Variation is not nutrient availability and the something that is doing the selecting is not the individual organism. A feature of an educated person is to realize what they do not know. Sadly, you don’t know that you have an incorrect understanding Darwinian biological evolution.
2) Jay R. Feierman: I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement.
No one has acknowledged the fact that my model is the only model that links the epigenetic landscape directly to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genome of all species, and no one has addressed any aspect of what I have included in my model in any attempt to tell me what I got wrong. Instead, I have repeatedly been subjected to antagonism by people who insist on clinging to a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection, or simply mutation-driven evolution, since no one seems to know how mutations are naturally selected.
I’ve seen no evidence that anyone understands the difference between reports of mutation-driven evolution and the actual dynamics of how nutrients enable gene duplication, and differences in nutrients cause the differences in the amino acid substitutions of different cell types. I co-authored a 1996 review article that detailed the link from alternative splicings of pre-mRNA to sex differences in cell types, and those details have also been largely ignored. More recently, rather than try to explain anything further, I have repeatedly quoted Dobzhansky (1964), since he accurately predicted what has happened during the past 50 years.
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!” What happened is that the bird watchers and butterfly collectors have dominated nearly every aspect of scientific pursuit. They observe bacterial colony types and report their results in terms of mutated organisms. They observe differences in morphology in birds and report that species diversity is do to visual and/or auditory input. They look at the results of brain imaging and meaningfully interpret meaningless results that do not have anything to do with how the epigenetic landscape results in changes in the brain.
Why are these people still touting their nonsense? The only reason I can think of is because they refuse to accept the fact that the holy grail of evolutionary biology is Creation. But that was as obvious to Dobzhansky 50 years ago as it is now. He wrote: “The working hypothesis now in vogue is that the process of adaptation to the environment is the main propellant of evolutionary change. Evidence is rapidly accumulating which, in my opinion, substantiates the hypothesis. It remains, however, not only to convince the doubters but, what is more important, to discover just how the challenges of the environment are translated into evolutionary changes. ”
The challenges of the environment are finding food and being able to successfully reproduce. Those challenges are met by the de novo Creation of genes for receptors in the cell membrane that allow nutrients to enter the cell. With increasing organismal complexity, these de novo Creation of these receptors becomes the experience-dependent de novo Creation of olfactory receptor genes that enable organisms to find food and find mates. Mutations are of no use whatsoever in meeting these ‘conditions of life.’ Clearly, this indicates that life did not mutate into existence and that organismal complexity did not result from accumulated mutations. And what that indicates is that evolutionary theorists must become something more than bird watchers and butterfly collectors for science to progress.