Our current understanding of adaptive evolution includes the fact that heterospecifics are eaten by conspecifics, which results in metabolism of the heterospecific nutrient source to a species-specific blend of pheromones that control reproduction. When I say “our current understanding,” I include only those who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to link sensory input to behavior in species from microbes to man.
I will continue to exclude theorists from “our understanding” of anything, because theorists don’t seem to understand the fact that adaptive evolution in arthropods does not occur via random mutations, which means adaptive evolution does not occur in any species due to random mutations. See for example: “The mutational source of adaptation – a symbiont in other members of the ecological community rather than a mutation of existing genetic material – is likely to change our understanding of arthropod evolution.”
For contrast from an evolutionary theorist here are excerpted comments by DWZ (with my emphasis); “…mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory. Without random mutations, the whole concept of evolution by natural selection would collapse, because there would be no variability from which to select.”
I wrote: What you now are both stating is precisely what’s wrong with touting Darwin’s
theory, when what’s been touted is a bastardized version of his theory, which was bastardized by the inclusion of statistical analyses. I’m rather certain I mentioned this before: Darwin’s passionate environmentalism or the dangerous fallacy of the ‘All-sufficiency of natural selection’ theory.
Are you only now coming to terms with why I’ve repeatedly claimed that mutations theory is ridiculous? It’s ridiculous because it has nothing to do with biological facts (i.e., Darwin’s conditions of existence.) His conditions of existence are, of course, nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled as is adaptive evolution.
Once more with my emphasis from DWZ: Far from being ridiculous, mutations are the heart and soul of evolutionary theory. Without random mutations, the whole concept of evolution by natural selection would collapse, because there would be no variability from which to select. The notion of an “evolutionary algorithm” as a computer program could not exist. Instead of finding fault with and rejecting in their entirety the great theories of the past, a better approach is to realize that successive theoretical advances have built on those that have come before, not started over each time.
My comment: To date, successive theoretical advances from evolutionary theorists have had no explanatory power. Besides, no model organism exemplifies adaptive evolution via random mutations. How can anyone build on a theory of evolution that explains nothing and is not exemplified? Clearly, it is long past time to start over with facts. For example, let’s start with Darwin’s ‘conditions of existence,’ which are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. There’s a model for that!