“Certainly the dramatic increase of these disorders over the past 50 years is not being caused by genetic changes in the human population. We currently know that a number of environmental factors, like nutrients and chemicals, are capable of altering gene expression, and those factors that manage to penetrate germline chromatin and escape reprogramming could, in theory, be passed on to our progeny. As scientists continue to search for definitive evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans, the implications thus far suggest that the quality of the food we eat … and the air we breathe may directly affect the genetic health of our children and possibly our grandchildren.” — A post-genomic view of behavioral development and adaptation to the environment.
Although referred to in the context of affects on genetic health, the epigenetic effects of the air that we breath include effects of chemicals like food odors and pheromones that epigenetically effect hormones that affect behavior. The full text of the article quoted above is available here. As does my model, it refutes the concept of mutation-driven evolution and reitterates the fact that there has never been any scientific support for that theory. Instead, it has become clearer that Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. Thus, we now see that the concept of “mutation-driven evolution” has become an embarrassment to those who have touted it. Even the moderator of the human ethology yahoo group has changed his perspective. On 8/14/13, Feierman wrote: ” I also agree with David’s comments that rather than saying that “mutations are THE substrate upon which natural selection acts” a more accurate statement is “mutations are A substrate upon which natural selection acts.”
Note, for several years, I have been saying that the statement “mutations are THE substrate upon which natural selection acts” is wrong and that it is also scientifically unsubstantiated, especially in discussions on the human ethology yahoo group. It remains to be seen whether or not a more accurate statement is “mutations are A substrate upon which natural selection acts.” Clearly, there is no animal model in which “mutations are A substrate upon which natural selection acts.”
There is only confusion about Darwin’s descent with modification in the context of what is modified and what is naturally selected, since whatever that is must benefit nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled species-specific adaptive evolution. Mutations don’t benefit nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled species-specific adaptive evolution, and no scientific evidence suggests that one organism would select a mutant conspecific for mating, or anything other than pheromone-controlled reproduction is responsible for species diversification. Evidence of predator-controlled “natural selection” is the least likely of any theoretical evidence to be found in the continuum of adaptive evolution that results in genetic changes in the human population addressed in my most recent publication. In Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model a human population appears to have adaptively evolved during the past ~30,000 years due to a single nutrient-dependent amino acid substitution (sans mutations).