Random mutations theory and pervasive mosaic evolution (the body)
December 16, 2012 | James Kohl
The more things change: Trait variance provides evidence of pervasive mosaic evolution December 14, 2012 by Stuart Mason Dambrot
Excerpts:1) “The researchers suggest that their findings provide evidence that widespread mosaic evolution – the tendency for different parts within species to evolve in different ways or at different rates – has occurred throughout our planet’s history.” 2) “We’re currently looking in more detail at data collection methods and expanding our inquiry to include additional and more complicated models of evolution.”
My comment: The most complicated model of evolution is one where the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals and pheromone-controlled reproduction are detailed from the bottom-up level (via examination of the microRNA / messenger RNA balance, which is required for cell level and organism level homeostasis) to the top-down level, which is where epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones on genes effect hormones that affect behavior.
Fortunately, the most complicated model is also the most obvious model of adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction that details how “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans.”
Unfortunately, this model may be too complicated for most people to grasp in its entirety despite its accurate representations of cause and effect across species from microbes to man.
What’s easier to grasp, however, is the fact that no model incorporating random mutations theory has any explanatory power whatsoever in the context of evidence for pervasive mosaic evolution. For example, could the mandibles of a cricket evolve via random mutations that concurrently randomly mutate the structure of the penis that’s responsible for species divergence?
Isn’t it more likely that the mandibles evolved via Natural Selection for food acquisition and that the penis evolved via nutrient chemical-dependent pheromone-controlled Sexual Selection? If so, this cricket model exemplifies what is neuroscientifically known to be true and false about theories of evolution. For example, it appears to exemplify the fact that random mutations theory is the most ridiculously false theory of adaptive evolution ever considered to be representative of both Natural Selection and Sexual Selection because they must concurrently occur, which makes them non-random processes of selection.