Great article! Ill add that Philip Ball did not mention Hugo de Vries definition of mutation. That definition led to the ridiculous Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinism) and assumptions about cause and effect that prevailed during 80+ years of research in genetics and evolution. That research failed to establish what is known to serious scientists. Simply put, cause and effect must be linked from metabolic networks to genetic networks. Philip Ball politely trashes neo-Darwinism and, without mentioning them, he brings back Darwins conditions of life. Those conditions of life link ecological variation to ecological adaptations without the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics and ridiculous claims that mutations, which perturb protein folding, somehow lead to the evolution of biodiversity. I regret that most people still cannot think in terms of ecology, since Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4]. rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/…/1768/20131481.short However, the problem with thoughts about evolution will soon be eliminated when intelligent people realize that evolution is the term used for ecological adaptation, which occurs via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions. Darwin did not know about genetics and RNA-mediated events that link nutrient uptake to the physiology of reproduction and biodiversity in species from microbes to man. If he had, his theory would now be referred to as the Theory of Ecological Adaptation, and it could be viewed in the context of other scientifically established facts. #ecology #adaptation #biodiversity #Darwin #genetics #RNA_mediated
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:23:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015