In my model, the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals on intracellular signaling and stochastic gene expression cause Imprinting Evolution, which is controlled by the metabolism of the nutrient chemicals to species-specific pheromones. Pheromones epigenetically control reproduction in species from microbes to man. In my model, Natural Selection is for nutrient chemicals that enable survival. Sexual Selection in organisms hat sexually reproduce is for pheromones that signal nutrient chemical-dependent reproductive fitness.
I asked this question on the evolutionary psychology group
Which makes more sense: Imprinting evolution or an ancient genetic accident (e.g., a mutation)? If the mutation story makes more sense, why hasn’t anyone provided a model that details how mutations cause adaptive evolution?
The response I received from the group’s moderator is here. (I’ve tried to make sense of it by paraphrasing, rephrasing, and using excerpts but so far none of what he said makes sense to me.
Remember the question: Why hasn’t anyone provided a model that details how mutations cause adaptive evolution?
‘Natural Selection’ and ‘Sexual Selection’ are the standard models that detail how mutations cause adaptive evolution. In these models, “…variations between individuals form a pool of potential breeders where only the fittest proliferate.”
Q. Where do the variations come from?
A. Primarily from the existing genome due to mutations caused mainly by flaws in the replication process.
Q. Where did the existing genome come from?
Q. How important are the flaws and mutations to adaptive evolution?
A. The flaws are mostly neutral causing no variation. Most of the rest are deleterious but some are advantageous.
And, here we are, 150 years post theory construction and story telling with a clear evolutionary trail (and a model) when all the biological facts represented in the context of nutrient chemical-dependent, pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution support the model. No one even challenges the biological facts — as you may have noticed. And then, last week we saw the news about Ecological selection as the cause and sexual differentiation as the consequence of species divergence? The link is to a free full text representation of the importance of nutrient chemicals and pheromones to concurrently controlled adaptive evolution of the mandibles and male genitalia of an insect species.
As I detailed using the honeybee model organism, this concurrent control must be due to the epigenetic tweaking of immense gene networks (not random mutations), or these species differences could not have adaptively evolved. And now, despite previous evidence suggesting that sexual selection is the primary driver of species divergence, these researchers provide evidence that ecological divergence precedes sexual divergence. That evidence links Natural Selection for nutrient chemical uptake — via development of differences in the mandibles — to sex differences in the development of the male genitalia (i.e., to Sexual Selection in that order). Sexual selection is linked todivergence in species from microbes to man (with the advent of sexual selection in yeasts that is also nutrient chemical dependent).
It’s the order and concurrent nature of selection: Natural precedes Sexual, that makes it non-random. Bottom up nutrient chemical-dependent selection that precedes top-down control of reproduction in every species is notdue to mutations. It’s due to nutrient chemical-dependent, pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. Did you see the article on olfactory modulation of vision also published last week? I still get a good laugh when people say that people, unlike other animals, are primarily visual creatures because there’s a theory about that.