Natural Selection and Sexual Selection must concurrently occur, which makes them non-random processes not driven by random mutations.
It’s interesting to see Feldman indicate that “human movements drove a new form of natural selection” as if there was ever any other form of natural selection that had been detailed across species by anyone else.
The toxin did not kill the organism that ingested it, which is great for that individual. But how did the epigenetic effects of the toxin on intracelluar signaling and stochastic gene expression contribute to species survival
As an alternative to my model, one of the people involved in presenting the ENCODE data has said there are “random models” that may explain adaptive evolution across species. Does anyone know what he’s talking about? What “random model” helps to explain the species diversity that results from nutrient acquisition and the metabolism of nutrient chemicals to pheromones….
…you can now compare the science that’s behind the claims, unless the claims others make are for undisclosed active ingredients that somehow cause this affect on behavior (e.g., increased affection).
Olfaction is the ‘sensing agent’ of natural selection, because natural selection requires selection of nutrient chemicals that metabolize to pheromones that control reproduction and species diversification.
Ignoring the molecular biology common to all organisms from microbes to man makes it appear that biological and cultural processes operate somewhat independently across species — as if there were significant differences in the molecular biology of different species.
Are others willing to simply skip from asexual reproduction in microbial cells to the biologically based evolution of human language sans sexual reproduction; the mammalian placenta; and de novo genes required for the evolution of human intelligence, consciousness, and our cultural processes?
Social selection allows for what most people refer to as natural selection.