. . . e v o l u t i o n e m . . .
taking a fresh look at evolution
Interested in matters of evolution?
This web-site intends to bring together all the latest thinking on matters of evolution, in a coherent way. It will act as a centre for resources on the study of evolution.
Read the articles and come to understand how evolution really works. There are several new interpretations of evolutionary processes which should stand the test of scientific scrutiny.
INTRODUCTION
This will be the closest analysis of evolutionary principles since the days of Charles Darwin. Nowadays we know so much more about many aspects of evolution, such as DNA sequencing and comparative mammalian brain morphology; and there is a considerable legacy of research and observation.
Gene sequencing in particular will eventually illuminate the various pathways animals have evolved along, and show true affinities between species. Much of the early classification was arbitrary; animals which showed similar dentition or bone structure were grouped together. It is becoming more and more evident that some of these groupings of animals are only similar because they share the same habitat, or eat similar things: in other words their pathways of evolution have converged.
Lemurs, monkeys and apes are examples of this convergence; - they all share similar characteristics because they live in a forest habitat. They are all relatively intelligent, have flattish faces and forward facing eyes, have gripping hands and spend a lot of time sitting upright. They all have limbs that articulate universally (a requirement for movement in trees) and shortened lower limb bones (ankles).
Until now we have assumed that there has been linear evolution from animals like bush babies, through lemurs, monkeys, until finally apes (including ourselves) appear, and this line of evolution was explained by the incremental evolution of intelligence. In these articles I will show why this assumption is erroneous.
I will highlight the phenomenon of reversion, first mentioned by Charles Darwin, but only lightly touched on by him, when he referred to certain humans who appeared to have “throw-back†features of apes. I am astonished that reversion as a mechanism of evolution has not been considered at all over the last 130 years of study in the biological sciences. In fact, the word reversion has only re-appeared recently as a term used by microbiologists to describe how viruses can change their genetic information rapidly to override immune systems.
In these articles I will describe how Reversion is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process and how it can bring about profound and rapid change (literally in the space of a generation) by making “archaic†gene clusters available. When a species is pioneering new environments, these “old designs†of tissue structures or organs may be more useful than their modern counterparts.
Once you accept that the process of reversion does take place, many of those evolutionary features which have puzzled biologists can be explained. I will run through some of these anomalies in later articles.
Archaic gene clusters could be held in the so called “junk genes†which present in all chromosomes, but appear to serve no purpose. Gene sequencing only examines those 80,000 ‘active’ genes out of the two billion genes on our chromosomes. It is an amusing thought that the gene clusters for producing dinosaur scales or downy feathers may still be lurking somewhere in our chromosomes!
It is essential that we come to understand the true pathways of evolution before we embark on expensive research programmes in medical science or microbiology, to prevent us “barking up the wrong treeâ€. Studying monkeys or lemurs with a view to understanding human biology would immediately be seen as less effective if it were shown that these creatures were not our immediate ancestors.
On the other hand reversion, which appears to be nature’s way of re-shaking the genetic dice from time to time, could have enormous value in medical science. If we could find ways of switching on ‘back-up’ gene clusters from archaic material, we might be able to restore functionality to those specialised cells with damaged genes.
One article will explore the origins of mankind from rainforest apes and propose a scenario which might explain why we, in terms of biological and psychological make-up, are like we are. In another, I demonstrate an alternative pathway which preceded the rainforest apes.
Another article analyses the notion that monotremes like the platypus evolved from birds and not reptiles and examines the supporting information.
The articles on Planetary Metamorphosis describe how planets may have life cycles and are not the static products of a spontaneous creation event. This theory explains how the characteristic form of our planet Earth has come about. A model is described whereby all the continental landmasses are fitted together on an Earth, 50% of its present size, forming an original integument. These landmasses separated as a result of rupture of this integument, and irregular expansion of the Earth’s surface by ocean bed formation. This is the Clam-shell Expansion Theory.
From the small Earth model (Pangean Earth) we can reduce to an even smaller Earth (35% present radius) which comprise solely of the craton parts (of the continental landmasses) assembled side by side. This model is a robust extrapolation of the first model and places the super-continent Rodinia as a previous stage integument of an Earth which has undergone linear diameter increase over hundreds of millions of years.
This is all very exciting stuff and could be a watershed in an understanding of the evolution of the Earth. It could also effect a major paradigm shift if we have to accept that our small planet and our own existence does not stretch on into perpetuity; our planet has a limited ‘shelf life’.
I hope you will join me in this study.
Andrew D. Mackay
COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2008
advertising
advertising2