Biological facts constrain proponents of random mutations theory
Junk DNA Not Junk After All Medical New Today Article Date: 09 Sep 2012 – 4:00 PDT
Excerpt: “…80% of the human genome serves some purpose and is biochemically active, for example, in regulating the expression of genes situated nearby.”
My comment: The concept that is extended with this admission that ‘junk DNA’ is not ‘junk’ involves the epigenetic “tweaking” of immense gene networks in ‘superorganisms’ that ‘solve problems through the exchange and the selective cancellation and modification of signals (see for review Tsuda & Kawata, 2010; Kohl, 2012)
For example, nutrient chemicals and pheromones epigenetically effect intracellular signaling and stochastic gene expression in all species. Simply put, the nutrient chemicals (e.g., food odors) and the pheromones (e.g., social odors) cause the assembly of new genes from materials that are already available in the cell. Abundant nutrient chemical contact with the cell wall causes de novo odor receptor production that enables the passage of the nutrient into the cell where it alters electrostatic signaling as its metabolism with other nutrients to species specific pheromones controls reproduction (e.g., also via receptor-mediated changes in intracellular signaling and stochastic gene expression).
Nutrient chemicals are required for individual survival of all cells, and their metabolism to pheromones controls reproduction in unicellular and multicellular organisms. In this context, multicellular organisms consisting of more than one cell type are superorganisms. If the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals and pheromones on receptor-mediated stochastic gene expression was not responsible for de novo gene expression (e.g., for new odor receptors) in unicellular organisms and in multicellular superorganisms, we would have nothing but a theory of random mutations to explain species diversity. However, the fact that “…80% of the human genome serves some purpose and is biochemically active…” can now be combined with the obvious facts that 1) organisms must eat to evolve and 2) their pheromones control the reproduction that enables the evolution of genetically diverse organisms.
Biological facts: Species diversity is obviously dependent on nutrition and species-specific pheromones for ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction via adaptive evolution in species from microbes to man. Nutrient chemicals enable receptor-mediated de novo gene expression and pheromones constrain it.
Evolutionary theory: For comparison, until now we have had only a theory of random mutations, which suggested random cause and did not address any constraints. That theory can now be compared to the biological facts of evolved gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system reciprocity, which is obviously due to the epigenetic “tweaking” of immense gene networks by nutrient chemicals and pheromones.
Isn’t it long past time to look at what is known about the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization and use biological facts to dispatch the evolutionary theorists to their proper place in the history of science? Haven’t we been misled by their theories for long enough?