Mutation-driven amino acid substitutions and mutation-initiated natural selection in the context of mutation-driven evolution currently can be reported only in the historical context of magical, metaphorical, or metaphysical effects akin to stories about ancient sorcerers. Such stories include subtlety and devilish mischief that pervert what is known about the constraints of physics on chemistry and the conserved molecular mechanisms that link species from microbes to man.
Dobzhansky, for example, recognized the importance of amino acid substitutions in primates 30 years ago in Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. He wrote: “…the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla.” Unless these species-wide differences in single amino acid substitutions are included in theories of evolution, it seems likely that people like Jay R. Feierman (MD, Ph.D), will continue to tout nonsense, as he has done during all the years of my participation in the group he moderates.
I wrote: It is now perfectly clear that this statement and any statement or inference like it is WRONG: Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts. Here is a typically arrogant and ignorant response from Feierman, the moderator, who censors many of my posts.
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. Produce one such person. You can try to recruit such a person however you like. Don’t give links to articles and abstracts that don’t address that exact sentence. Your arrogance amazes me. It would be like me saying that gravity does not cause items with mass to fall to earth at 32 feet/sec/sec in a vacuum as that is how fundamental the statement that random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts is to biology and genetics. You really want us to believe that you are the expert on this topic when 100% of university level biology textbooks for Biology 101 and all biology and genetics professors will say the exact same sentence or something almost identical.
I want people to believe the scientific truth. That’s why I’m glad Feierman mentioned “gravity” in his fallacious appeal to authority (the authority of professors in accredited universities that enables them to teach the nonsense about evolution that defies the laws of physics. The laws of physics make it clear that species differences in birds attributed to plumage color should first be considered in the light of conserved molecular mechanisms. It is the biophysical constraints on conserved molecular mechanisms in viruses and in species from microbes to man that link single amino acid substitutions to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations in my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution via conserved molecular mechanisms in living organisms from yeasts to other mammals.
I am an expert only in that context. It is the context of systems biology that integrates what has been learned about molecular epigenetics since we first mentioned it in a 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article as an integral part of the pheromone-controlled physiology of mammalian reproduction.
It should surprise no one that the molecular mechanisms of alternative splicings are conserved across species. If they were not, nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations could not have occurred. Evolution could then only be attributed to mutations that somehow initiate natural selection or mutation-driven evolution by some other means unknown to man that might not be constrained by the laws of physics, which include gravity and thermodynamics that enable nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution via organism-level thermoregulation in species from microbes to man.
The news article makes the importance of this new finding somewhat clearer. A species-specific immune system receptor linked to carbohydrate metabolism in the cells of modern humans, appears to be inherited from an earlier species of modern human, the Neanderthals. Cause and effect is not linked to mutations except those used to induce the changes, and mutagenesis in the experiments in not linked to the out-of-Africa theory of human evolution. That theory has been used to exemplify mutation-initiated natural selection, which has never been exemplified by any experimental evidence.
Now, the appearance of this receptor is yet another refutation of mutations theory that fits my model of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenetically-effected diversity in species from microbes to man via single amino acid substitutions associated with nutrient uptake, nutrient metabolism, and the species-specific pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction. Now, there is clear evidence that Jay R. Feierman and perhaps even the 100% of university level biology textbooks for Biology 101 and all biology and genetics professors are wrong, and they should quit teaching students anything similar to what Feierman has indicated when he wrote: Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts.
Re: ‘Immune gene’ in humans inherited from Neanderthals, study suggests On Nov 24, 2013 I wrote
This finding is not consistent with the claim that: Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts. The inheritance of immune system genes is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. The novel receptor exemplifies the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes and their downstream effects on nutrient uptake and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man. Their experiments refute “mutation-driven evolution” as does all experimental evidence of biophysical constraints on the chemistry of protein folding and the conserved molecular mechanisms of adaptive evolution. Doesn’t it?
Feierman blocked my post to the group: He wrote: ” Redundant. “