Ecological variation: the raw material by which natural selection drives evolutionary divergence

Tracking niche variation over millennial timescales in sympatric killer whale lineages

Article excerpt (first line): “Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4].”

My comment: Is anyone else familiar with the extant literature on ecological variation, selection for nutrients, and their metabolism to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction in species from microbes to man? If so, it should be easy to grasp the concept of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary divergence.

For concision, I wrote: Natural selection : “If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.” The variation is nutrient availability and nutrients metabolize to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction and heredity. Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always for nutrients. It is as simple as that.

For comparison, there is no concept to be grasped and no scientific evidence to support the following statement: “Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts.” However, despite the lack of evidence to support his statement, On 7/25/13, Jay R. Feierman wrote: It is very sad for me to see that when several different people on this group, all with doctorate degrees, tell you [James V. Kohl] that you are not correct, you don’t consider that they might be telling you something helpful. Instead, you respond with arrogance and ignorance.

As I always have done, I responded to Feierman’s nonsense with incredulity and evidence from publications and presentations that was repeatedly ignored, and Feierman blocked posts that he claimed were redundant because they supported nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. Then, on August 14, 2013, Feierman changed his claim to “mutations are A substrate upon which natural selection acts.”  An edited book length refutation of Feierman’s ridiculous revised claim is now available: “Biological Information: New Perspectives” (Publication Date: August 6, 2013).

With new evidence from the top of the aquatic food chain that “Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence,” the link to evolutionary divergence via an important contributor to our terrestrial food chain should be readily apparent.

That link is the honeybee model organism of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution, which I used to detail epigenetic cause and effect in Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.  Epigenetic cause and effect was subsequently exemplified via focus on conserved molecular mechanisms in Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.

I used nematodes, insects, other mammals, and a human population that adaptively evolved during the past ~30,000 years in what is now central China. I showed how ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction result from selection for nutrients that cause variations in ecological niche construction that lead to pheromone-controlled species diversification in species from microbes to man.

Thus, we have arrived at the top of the aquatic food chain and at the top of the terrestrial food chain via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution sans the involvement of mutations at any level of examination whatsoever. This means Feierman should be required to support his ridiculous revised claim that “mutations are A substrate upon which natural selection acts.” If he cannot support his ridiculous revised claim, he should probably be replaced by another high priest of the academic priesthood that tells non-academics like me: “You are wrong” with only their doctoral degrees to support their opinion of what’s right and who’s wrong. What’s not right is to tell someone else they are wrong because you and your foolish supporters have doctoral degrees.

Author: James Kohl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.