Excerpt “The sudden appearance of placental fossils in the Palaeogene is consistent with an adaptive radiation of mammals assuming ecological niches left vacant by dinosaurs.”
My comment: The sudden appearance of anything in the fossil record is more consistent with nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations via amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements than it is with the theory of mutation-driven evolution, which presumably takes place — if it ever does — over millions of years in which accumulated mutations cause one species to become another species.
Excerpt: “Concerned that the timescale of placental mammal evolution presented in O’Leary et al.  may become accepted uncritically [without experimental evidence by proponents of “evolution for dummies”], we highlight and remedy the serious shortcomings manifest in their study.”
Excerpt: “The ages of placental groups presented here, together with those from recent studies [2,3], favour an early Palaeogene (i.e. post K–Pg) scenario for the diversification of placental ordinal level crown groups [2,3]. However, they also establish the origin of Placentalia firmly within the Cretaceous, supporting Archibald and Deutchman’s  long fuse model and rejecting the explosive model of placental origination in the Palaeocene advocated by O’Leary et al. .”
My comment: First they ignored the ridiculous theory of mutation-driven evolution and attributed adaptations to ecological niche construction. This enabled them to correctly represent what is currently known about nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction, without consulting any atheistic biology teacher who still believes that mutation-initiated natural selection caused species divergence.
Obviously, this is how scientific progress will continue to be made. Eventually, given the number of reports that consistently refute the ridiculous theory, anyone who still teaches it will be recognized as the “crank” he is, and John A. Davison and I may be recognized for contributing the accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect that support the already established representations in Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology.
Excerpt: “Perhaps the elegant mathematics and the extraordinary reputation of the scientists involved blinded us to what now seems obvious: the organism should never have been relegated to the role of mere carrier of its genes.”
My comment: Therefore, anyone who still believes that mutated genes cause evolution, should probably start thinking about the obvious fact that ecological adaptations are nutrient-dependent and controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to the species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
Excerpt from Kohl (2012) : Among different bacterial species existing in similar environments, DNA uptake (Palchevskiy & Finkel, 2009) appears to have epigenetically ‘fed’ interspecies methylation and speciation via conjugation (Fall et al., 2007; Finkel & Kolter, 2001; Friso & Choi, 2002). This indicates that reproduction began with an active nutrient uptake mechanism in heterospecifics and that the mechanism evolved to become symbiogenesis in the conspecifics of asexual organisms (Margulis, 1998). In yeasts, epigenetic changes driven by nutrition might then have led to the creation of novel cell types, which are required at evolutionary advent of sexual reproduction (Jin et al., 2011). These epigenetic changes probably occur across the evolutionary continuum that includes both nutrition-dependent reproduction in unicellular organisms and sexual reproduction in mammals. For example, ingested plant microRNAs influence gene expression across kingdoms (Zhang et al., 2012). In mammals, this epigenetically links what mammals eat to changes in gene expression (McNulty et al., 2011) and to new genes required for the evolutionary development of the mammalian placenta (Lynch, Leclerc, May, & Wagner, 2011) and the human brain (Zhang, Landback, Vibranovski, & Long, 2011).
My comment: By moving quickly from microbes to development of the mammalian placenta as I did above, I may have misrepresented something. Indeed, I would be surprised if I didn’t. It is very difficult to propose anything that appears to be all-encompassing, and even more difficult for others to accept it. Nevertheless, whatever I might have misrepresented should be compared to the misrepresentations made by evolutionary theorists who seem to want others to believe that the mammalian placenta mutated into existence as if it were possible for any different cell type in any individual of any species to be mutated into creation and naturally selected for fixation in the organized genome of any organism.