Article excerpt: These observations raise the prospect that male–female seminal fluid signaling in mammals, as in insects, has an evolutionary benefit in facilitating reproductive success and progeny fitness. It will be of interest to evaluate whether seminal fluid acts similarly in humans, where seminal plasma composition and signaling capacity vary among men (48). I wonder who thinks the molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations vary across species from microbes to man. Arent conserved molecular mechanisms required to enable species diversity? Is there any reason a mammalian model would not include all mammals? I get the impression that researchers are milking the system for every dime they can get to study the same thing in every species -- just to make certain that the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genome of all species without the involvement of mutations. There always remains the possibility that mutations cause ecological adaptations even though no experimental evidence suggests that is biophysically possible. Instead, researchers have a proposal that turned into a model. Dobzhansky [8] and Muller [9], partially preceded by Bateson [3,7,10] proposed that hybrid sterility and inviability are caused by incompatible alleles alternatively fixed in two previously isolated populations (BDM model). The BDM model is so straightforward that it became the null model of speciation [7] and except for a few strong proponents (notably [1,2]) chromosomal speciation was largely neglected. cell/trends/ecology-evolution//retrieve/pii/S0169534710001795?_returnURL=linkinghub.elsevier/retrieve/pii/S0169534710001795?showall=true With no experimental evidence whatsoever, chromosomal rearrangements were ignored and a proposal became accepted as a model of speciation because the model was straightforward. No Biological Laws were included, Darwins conditions of life were not included, and the physiology of reproduction was not included. Ecological factors were excluded. I just realized why its been so difficult for people to understand my model; it includes too many things that were excluded in the null model of speciation, which they accepted because it was so straightforward. If I eliminated biologically-based cause and effect from my model, it would be equally straightforward. But it wouldnt be a model of ecological adaptations; it would be nonsense akin to mutation-driven evolution.
Posted on: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:28:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015