Not one “Big Bang” but at least two Big Bangs — in theory
October 22, 2013 | James Kohl
“Darwin’s Dilemma” –Enigma of Evolution’s Cambrian “Big Bang” Solved September 12, 2013 Daily Galaxy
Excerpt 1: “species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks”—without any evidence of prior ancestral forms.
Excerpt 2: In this study the scientists estimated that rates of both morphological and genetic evolution during the Cambrian explosion were five times faster than today – quite rapid, but perfectly consistent with Darwin’s theory of evolution.
My comment: Darwin’s theory of evolution (e.g., via a series of small changes that were somehow naturally selected) included mention of the ‘conditions of life’ that must be met before natural selection could occur. The recently reported Skull 5 findings suggest a single species of Homo has existed on this planet for the past 1.8 million years. Reports of what have been considered species-wide changes may be merely natural nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled variations in morphology, which are exemplified in species from microbes to man.
Nutrient uptake, as Darwin inferred, is one ‘condition of life.’ Nutrient uptake and what is currently known about metabolism in cells and in organisms predicts that the other ‘condition of life’ will be pheromone-controlled reproduction via the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones.
I wonder if anyone will comment on the two Big Bangs that include the 2nd one, also known as the Cambrian Explosion in this context. Could evidence of species diversity from the fossil record also have been wrongly interpreted in the context of natural variations and Darwin’s conditions of life?
For example, nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled natural variations in the morphology of skin, teeth, hair, and mammary tissue link a change in a single base pair to an amino acid substitution that is clearly the cause of these natural variations in mice. The mouse model shows that the same natural variations occur in a human population, which appears to have adapted to environmental conditions in what is now central China during the past ~30,000 years. That population is not considered a new human species. It is an example of how quickly nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled changes can appear population-wide.
Based on past estimates of mutation-driven evolution, which have never been experimentally substantiated, if skulls of the human population that exists today in central China were found sometime during the next 2.8-1.8 million years, the changes would be attributed to the mutation-driven evolution of species differences.
However, there is also evidence that most of the changes to the human genome , which make us “modern” humans have resulted from natural variations during the past 5-10,000 years. What this suggests to me is that if someone found and examined my skull approximately 1.8 million years from now, they would think I belonged to a different species of human than you or I do. Or perhaps they would simply think that you and I and every other member of the single human species that has existed across the continuum of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled natural variations was a mutant. Such thoughts would be consistent with what some people think today exemplifies mutation-driven evolution despite the fact that their thoughts have never been experimentally substantiated. Instead, they seem to equate mathematical models with actual thoughts about the biological basis of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive variations.