Whale-specific mutations or natural genetic engineering? (revisited)
December 16, 2013 | James Kohl
From November 24 till today, I’ve had great fun discussing how whales became whales with Robert Smith. I hope that others have time to read his comments and my responses. The bottom line is this: No matter what people think causes evolution or how it does it, adaptions are caused by ecological variation. The innate ability of cells to select nutrients is what enables nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations via alternative splicings. The alternative splicings are responsible for amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to mammals. This includes whales and one species of man that best exemplifies natural genetic engineering sans mutations theory.
Excerpted from my comment to Robert Smith: I know how badly you must want beneficial mutations to be responsible for the amino acid substitutions that link the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input to species diversity in all species. But “Bob” — it is clearly ecological variation that does it.
Back to the whales: See: “Tracking niche variation over millennial timescales in sympatric killer whale lineages”
1) “Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4].”
2) “The differences in amino acid composition among different tissues can lead to large differences in trophic discrimination .”
I don’t know why anyone thinks that trophic discrimination results from mutations in species from microbes to man.
Edited comment: Trophic changes are obviously nutrient-dependent, and if they were not adaptative, they would tend to be eliminated like cancers and not lead to mutation-driven evolution.
Four concurrently published articles in the December 13, 2013 issue of Science Magazine collectively show that ecological variation; transcription; and nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled gene expression enable alternative splicings and amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types, individuals, observed morphology, and species-specific behaviors. Collectively, the following experimental evidence-based reports refute current beliefs about evolutionary theory. See: Alternative splicings and amino acid substitutions (redux)
Anyone who wants to continue arguing for inclusion of a ridiculous theory in the context of adaptations and place all the adaptations in every species into the context of mutation-driven evolution, must now try to do so by including biological facts and avoiding the ridiculous assertions of other theorists. For example, don’t use Lenski’s experiments as proof of mutations theory. The results were based on observations made 25 years ago, which have biased the reporting of results since then. Once you start reporting things in terms of mutations theory, you’re stuck with it, as we have seen here with all bird-watchers and butterfly-collectors whose works Dobzhansky damned to obscurity in 1964when he said: “… the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!” I have used that quote several times during the past few weeks, and the only response to it that I received was from someone who said Dobzhansky was an a___ for saying it. That criticism came from an academic who obviously was willing to support his belief in evolutionary theory via name-calling in the case of Dobzhansky’s belief in Creation stated in [link opens .pdf] “Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”
See also: “The direction and speed of the evolution of any group of organisms at any given time is the resultant of the interaction of a series of reasonably well known factors and processes, both hereditary and environmental. The task of the evolutionist, therefore, is to seek out and evaluate all these factors and processes in respect to as many different organisms as possible, and from the specific information thus acquired construct such generalizations and hypotheses as he can. This requires the broadest possible knowledge of biology, which, if it cannot be acquired through direct contact with original research, must be built up vicariously through communication with biologists in different fields. — G. Ledyard Stebbins, Jr., ‘Preface’, Variation and Evolution in Plants, 1950. (quoted in [link opens .pdf] Keeping up with Dobzhansky: G. Ledyard Stebbins, Jr., plant evolution, and the evolutionary synthesis.)
I have learned about as many different organisms as possible, via experience as a medical laboratory scientist who performed testing on patients using tests that were developed for use on humans based on experimental evidence of cause and effect from other species. Meanwhile, no matter what biologists have learned about from other species, bird-watchers and butterfly collectors refuse to believe evidence that refutes their theories, which are largely based only on macroscopic observation. No matter what they think their observations prove, it is experimental evidence that proves or disproves theory. Experimental evidence proves the theory of mutation-driven evolution is nonsense. I think that many others may know that, but they simply must refuse to admit it, after having watched birds or collected butterflies for so long, instead of critically examining experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect.