==Evolution by removing obstacles==

The traditional interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics (chaos increasing at the expense of order, also known as "it gets worse all the time") is a violation of the law of conservation of information. The paradox can be solved by making the second law of thermodynamics into a limited sub-theory of the law of conservation of information, instead of an independent law of physics. This version eradicates the whole distinction between order and chaos, making time an increase of information. This also implies that self-organization into more complex forms happen just because there is no obstacle against it.

That means that much of evolution can be characterized as deobstaculation (removal of obstacles) instead of adaptation. As shown in brain, tolerant social environments creates extreme recoveries after brain damage unexplainable by established neurological and psychological theories. Human evolution may have started because some apes abandoned status-based politics, allowing them to dare do mistakes to learn from, see origin of language. Anyway, the necessity of being willing to do mistakes to learn from to become smart means that higher cognition cannot have evolved by pressure to be as flawless as possible, ruling out both neo-Darwinian models of why human intelligence evolved (Machiavellian politics and sexual selection). The more developed brains in wasps compared to other insects may be because their eggs, larvae and pupps are kept in protected, enclosed environments in one form or another where they do not have to be wary of predation. See law of flexible problem solving.

Suggested experimentEdit

The latter theory (the one about wasp intelligence) can be tested by taking eggs of other insects, such as fruit flies, and placing them in similarily protected environments throughout their egg, larva and pupp stages, and later testing their cognition, examine their brains (and breathing trachea) and save their tissues to screen for epigenetic change, DNA aneuploidies and DNA repairing enzyme levels. Also examine if they pass it on to later generations. If you have done such an experiment, please write the results here on this wiki.

Organisms are NOT gene machinesEdit

Evidence for regulation in cells without genetic instructionsEdit

Red blood cells survive for weeks with no cellular nucleus or DNA, until their proteins wear out. That means that cells can regulate themselves without genetic instructions. It, and chemical languages used by ants and slime molds to regulate retrieval of necessary things, also falsifies the claim that a fixed limiting factor should be necessary for energy budgets.

Something is wrong with genetic drift theoryEdit

There is evidence that blue whales have a great genetic diversity despite recently being hunted to near-extinction. Of course it can be argued that they need the diversity, but since genetic drift theory predicts that retention of genetic diversity is impossible in small populations no matter if the diversity is needed, this still proves that something that cannot be explained by conventional theories of genetics is going on.

See also too many lethal mutations for natural selection to clean up.

The misframed "evidence" for gene-centered inheritance theoryEdit

Experiments with transplantation of genes and proteins respectively between cells supposedly proves that genes transfer inheritance and proteins do not, but that experiment contains the error source of destroying the motion patterns of proteins. Proteins carry out their functions moving around, so their main information content is most likely in their motion relative to each other. Picking the proteine molecules separately and inserting a few of them into a different cell destroys their relative motion patterns. Just because a relative motion pattern of proteins with its "verb" information is not a big coherent molecule containing the information content in its "noun" structure does not mean that the motion pattern of proteins is any less important or capable of having effects than the sequence "noun" information of DNA.

This inheritance by relative protein motion in intact cells can explain why cloned cats have been observed with a different fur color than the parent they had their genome from. It also explains why hybrids usually resemble their mothers more than their fathers (more proteins and cell membrane surface in the egg cell than in the sperm).

The making up of the "central dogma of molecular biology" is comparable to making thousands of copies of the key to a door, then standing meters from the door and throw the keys at the door like a drunk without aiming at the keyhole nor consider what end of the key hits the door, and then conclude that since thousands of key copies have been thrown at the door without locking it up, it is impossible to lock the door up with the key. The silliness in that conclusion is of course that it ignores that the key must be inserted into the keyhole and rotated correctly to lock the door up. And yet concluding that proteins cannot be reverse-coded into DNA from experiments with decontextualized protein molecule transplants of scrambled relative motion patterns repeats the same silly mistake.

Problems with Darwinian explanations of climate change adaptationEdit

Neo-(neo-)Darwinian explanations of adaptation to abrupt climate change (selection on an already present individual variation) has problems. One is the multiple inadequacies effect, that climate change causes chain reactions in ecosystems that causes the change to affect living conditions in not one but in multiple ways. These multiple changes of living conditions makes it virtually impossible that any individual should be born/hatched adapted to them all by random recombination chance. Another problem is that the periods of change would decimate the populations, which according to neo-(neo-)Darwinism would cause inbreeding and destroy the genetic variability for future changes.

Possible mechanismsEdit

Noticing when something is wrongEdit

A possible mechanism for making directed mutations is that working groups of proteins "feel" when one particular protein in the group does not do its job properly, and sends a signal that triggers unscrambling of the responsible genes. If the error is in the quantity of the proteine or the time at which it is manufactured (as opposed to the quality of the proteine molecule itself) the complaints are sent to the responsible non-coding DNA.

Quantum evolutionEdit

There is also an idea of quantum evolution, that nontemporal (without linear time) quantum effects biases mutations towards solutions of the problem. The molecules involved are small enough for such a thing to take place. The idea have been criticized because the proteins manufactured do not directly interact with the DNA that codes with them but with a RNA link between them, but that criticism ignores the possibility that the mutation can originate in the directly interacting RNA and then be reverse-transcripted into DNA. The existence of retroviruses proves that such reverse-transcription is possible, and the existence of symbiogenesis makes it likely that retroviruses can act as parts of more complex organisms (which is also empirically confirmed by the role of retroviruses in placentas).

See also no immovable movers evolution.

Safety copyingEdit

Adaptive directed gene duplications to have a safety copy that can carry out the old task while modifying the other copy for a new task explains why duplications of the whole genome generally coincides with dramatic climate change. The claim that Mendelian genetics anyhow disproves directed adaptive mutations ignores the fact that such directed adaptive duplications can explain the origin of chromosome pairs as well as recessivity. That is, recessivity as long as it applies to the old task, if the gene starts performing a different task it is no longer in direct expressional competition with the old gene. Rearrangement of the chromosome structure such as translocations, jumping genes and chromosomal splits and mergers can thus be non-random directed decoupling of genes that have diverged in their functions. Directed adaptive duplications in combination with a more efficient version of bacterial exchange of DNA fragments can also explain the origin of sexual reproduction. The whole assumption that Lamarckian evolution is somehow in conflict with Mendelian genetics is just a false dichotomy caused by ignorance of gene duplications.

Gene duplicationEdit

Gene duplications (copying a gene and placing the copies in the same genome) is a way to circumvent the problem that mutations may endanger the original function of the gene, by having a safety copy besides one to improve. This theory predicts that environmental stress should increase the frequency of gene duplications, which is supported by numerous coincidences between climate change and major duplications. However, be careful to avoid poor experiments with straw men and false generalizations of faliures. If you have done such an experiment, please write the results here on this wiki.

Genome duplicationsEdit

There is evidence that duplications of the whole genome have happened in evolution. For the lifeform to be able to survive that, epigenetics must have been warned that the duplication was going to happen before it happened. This shows that non-random control of duplication of the genome is integrated with epigenetics into a common regulator.

Duplications of the whole genome is common in plants and fish, but in mammals there is only evidence for duplication of smaller portions of it. This can be explained by the fact that at primitive stages of evolution there is much to correct, so they can as well duplicate the whole genome to have one safe copy and one to change, while later in evolution the genetic inconveniences are fewer so that principle only have to be applied to minor portions of the genome.

See also debunking the "intelligent design" strawman

Disaster cooperation and dearmationEdit

There are documented cases of disaster cooperation at the cellular level. For example, when yeast was centrifuged for some 60 days it became multicellular (reference: Key step in evolution replicated by scientists) (the fact that it responded to environmental stress by becoming more complex also falsifies the claim that simple organisms adapt better to change).

As shown by the yeast experiment in the comment field below, multicellularity emerged as a result of dearmation (as opposed to the arms race predicted by (neo-)Darwinian theory). It is also documented that eukaryotes (cells with nuclei) have more permeable, less defensive cell membranes than prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea). The defensive characteristics of prokaryote cell membranes is a major obstacle against endosymbiogenesis (formation of symbioses where one cell becomes a part of another). This makes it likely that eukaryotes emerged through a dearmation among prokaryotes. This theory can be tested by stressing prokaryotes of different sizes to see if they form endosymbiotic relationships, repeating the emergence of eukaryotes. However, ordinary optic microscopes are not good enough. If you know a way to make your own electron microscope cheaply, please add it to the list in advice for cheapening science (where other inventions are of course welcome too).

Adaptation-biased gene exchange between cellsEdit

There is evidence that bacteria and archaea can exchange small parts of their genome, and are strongly favoring adaptive pieces over useless ones. This is an example of non-Darwinian evolution. But considering that bacteria and archaea have more protective and less permeable cell membranes than eukaryotes, and that eukaryotes obviously formed through symbiogenesis between different prokaryotes, there is every logical reason to expect eukaryotes to be even better at such non-Darwinian evolution than are bacteria and archaea, making the idea of a Weismann's "soma/germline barrier" outright silly. See also inheritance of acquired characteristics. This mechanism would allow Lamarckian evolution even if mutations were truly random, provided that there are multiple cells around capable of exchanging genetic material.

This can be performed by exosomes.

Surface/volume lawEdit

As shown in experiments conducted by Jack Szostak et al., the surface/volume law (also known as the soap bubble law since it makes things round unless opposed strongly enough) spontaneously makes suitable complex molecules such as proteins self-organize into cell membranes (in a fashion similar to soap bubbles) if they are just shaken. Those membranes will, provided a supply of suitable complex molecules in the environment, grow. When they reach a certain size, they elongate into cylinders that split into two new spherical membranes. Reproduction without genes! The ease with which such cell membranes form contrasts dramatically to the difficulty and special conditions required to form chains of nucleic acids such as RNA and DNA. Although single bases form easily and are widespread throughout the cosmos, it is very difficult to make chains of them.

This makes it most likely that cell membranes is older than genes, provided a source of suitable complex molecules. Experiments at the Vertical Gun Lab shows that asteroid/comet impacts at a tilted angle makes simpler molecules such as amino acids fuse into more complex molecules such as proteins. This can transform not only the molecules brought by the asteroids/comets themselves but also molecules already on the surface or a bit below it (such as near hydrothermal vents which are rich in such simpler molecules) struck by the asteroid/comet. And since it is impacts at a tilted angle that have this effect, the same asteroid/comet can trigger the production of suitable complex molecules near several hydrothermal vents. The impact also provides the shaking required for self-organization into membranes.

This makes it likely that life actually appeared during the Late Heavy Bombardment (or even during an earlier bombardment) rather than after it, which is also supported by modern calculations showing that all water would not be globally boiled away at all. When the impact rate decreased, the cell membranes had to invent another way of getting the necessary complex molecules. Since there were still some molecules that could be used as nucleic acid controlling enzymes around, the cell membranes started building nucleic acid chains that could help them to produce the necessary proteins (proteins catalysing the formation of suitable sugars and fatty acids most likely emerged through self-organization well before decreasing impact rates made genes necessary for survival). After all, there is evidence that microbes, like all living things, can solve problems creatively. The protein soup produced by the meteoritic impacts were far more diverse than anything Jack Szostak's membranes got, allowing the membranes of the Late Heavy Bombardment to be microbe-smart as well (they would have had to be immune to toxic proteins, of course, but so are many organisms today as well). Since cell membranes can and do regulate the environment inside the cells, and it takes so special conditions to form genes that it is virtually impossible that they should have formed in an uncontrolled environment, the only place for the origin of genes that makes sense is inside cell membranes that created the necessary conditions as a sort-of-purposeful solution to the problems caused by dwindling proteine supply.

If the heavy asteroid bombardment had continued, the abiotic (non-living) protein supply would not have shut down, and cell membranes would have continued to evolve without genes. Since self-correction is superior to natural selection by death or sterility of whole individuals in its ability to drive evolution precisely, the absence of genes would not have prevented evolution of more complex life at all. Just because that life would still have needed an abiotic protein supply does not mean that it would have been any less alive. It would have lived off other resources than any known life, but known lifeforms also differ from each other in what resources they live off. It is just like human evolution did not stop just because humans do not live off eating grass.

However, this particular theory has problems explaining how cell membranes without genes could find the right molecules to build complex receptors among the various proteins produced by asteroid impacts.

Catalytic loopEdit

There is no evidence that any one molecule can replicate itself. Even DNA is replicated with the help from proteins. It is extremely difficult to explain how a molecule that replicates itself should have formed. However, molecules that catalyze chemical reactions are common. This makes it likely that molecules catalyzing the formation of molecules catalyzing the formation of molecules and so on eventually leads to a circle where the group of molecules catalyzing the formation of each other starts collectively replicating itself. This theory does not allow any molecule to replicate itself. It also means that there is no way to say that one molecule is the kernel and the others are its survival machines. It eradicates all distinctions between intrinsic and instrumental.

Although no spontaneous emergence of such catalytic loops have been observed, it may simply be due to the common factors in the modern world that prevents spontaneous generation from happening. The presence of oxygen is a well-known such factor. The experiments with impacts described in "Surface/volume law" above shows that the dwindling of asteroid and comet impacts may be an anti-spontaneous generation factor of the modern world too. But since the formation of molecular oxygen in quantities that can prevent spontaneous generation from happening is unlikely in the absence of photosynthetic life, and since heavy asteroid/comet bombardment is a natural part of planetary formation and its subsequent period of young planets, neither oxygen nor lack of impacts are likely to leave otherwise habitable worlds devoid of life.

In practice, the formation of catalytic loops would most likely produce not just a simple circle, but a web of semi-independent but intertwined sub-loops within the greater loop. That means the formation of chemical pathways that can be strengthened and weakened differentially and communicate with each other, just like synapses in a brain. That explains the problem-solving abilities of microbes.

DNA-repairing enzymesEdit

This means that organisms are not the survival machines of genes at all. Genes are just the proteine manufacturing servants of cell membranes, tools, surrogates for impact-produced proteins. As discovered when studying how mammals survive and breed without faliure in Chernobyl, such enzymes are still being used to repair DNA, see also inheritance of acquired characteristics.

The discovery that the energy comsumtion of flight leaves less energy for DNA repair, making birds less viable than mammals in Chernobyl, necessitates a more complex explanation of the role of magnetic reversals in evolution. It is known that some (but far from all) major steps in evolution coincided with magnetic reversals. The latest one, 780000 years ago, coincides with the rise of more complex brains in proto-humans and creative toolmaking. But since brains consume much energy, the traditional theory (that more cosmic radiation when the magnetic field shield was off let in more cosmic radiation creating random mutations for natural selection to work on) predicts that brains should devolve to save energy for the important DNA repair. The paradox is solved if the rise in intelligence was because more DNA repair meant more directed change of one's own genome, boosting self-critical cognition and overcoming limitations. Since the 1600s, the magnetic field have weakened by some 10 percent, a velocity similar to that during the early stages of magnetic reversal. Since the age of enlightenment began in the 1600s as well, it may be due to a new boost for self-criticism. Do NOT conflate this theory with straw men about magnetic fields and cosmic rays explaining everything in evolution, which it does not.

Evolution by complaintsEdit

Such evolution by cells and organisms as wholes complaining about defective proteins or protein manufacturing in the wrong amounts or at the wrong time shows a definition of life. Life is thus defined as a versatile ability to notice that something does not work and must be corrected (which, as shown above, dates back to before genes existed and did somewhat different jobs back then, but still the same versatile noticing that something is wrong). The versatility clause is the reason why machines with digital error messages are not alive. This versatility is enforced by the fact that one thing malfunctioning has multiple effects in the organism. Defining sentience by any specific type of sensors (such as pain sensors) is therefore total baloney. Specific sensors are inventions created by the whole as tools to pinpoint errors precisely, just like scientists invent better observation instruments. The "this does not work, something must be done" sense present in all living things is directly linked to the falsificative principle of science, meaning that there is no valid distinction between so-called "instinctive" survival and logical, scientific thought. But since justification effectively stuns the "this does not work, something must be done" experience, justification is actually a form of death in itself. This explains why intolerant environments (which causes social pressure to justify) prevents extreme recoveries after brain damage from happening by making brains quasi-computational.

The theory that life is defined by the ability to feel versatilely bad explains the euphoria often experienced by dying patients and severely hypoxic pilots. Dying is, by definition, the ceasing of the ability to feel versatilely bad. So feeling morally right from justification is a sort of near-death experience. And considering the importance of self-correction to remain viable, justificationism is likely to create multiple serious health problems. See also advice of ways to stop justifying, multiple stages of justification poisoning and origin of HIV.

Flexibility always outwits fixednessEdit

Any claims that genes evolved ways to protect themselves from natural genetic engineering, apart from overlooking the missing heredity problem, also overlooks the fact that sort-of purposefully acting cell membranes would always be able to find ways to outwit totally purposelessly acting genes. It also overlooks the fact that a catalytic loop cannot be broken into kernels and instruments. There are countless ways in which ways to make directed genetic changes can be invented. Therefore the concept of natural genetic engineering is not hinged on any one specific mechanism to create directed mutations. It is only hinged on creatively problem-solving organisms that finds a way, and there is evidence for creative problem solving even in microbes. Genes cannot have "taken over" any more than your toast can outwit you. This explains the absence of irredeemably Malthusian being takeover outlined in moderating the Gaia/Medea debate and the absence of racialization shown in brain. See law of flexible problem solving.

Furthermore, claiming that one molecule should have taken over and made the other molecules into "survival machines" even if life began without a selfish replicator molecule is at odds with the whole idea that life is contingent on its origins. If life is contingent on its origins, why assume that it should have undergone such a dramatic change of internal structure just to do it?

The term "natural genetic engineering" is really only about one of the results of the theory and not a technically correct description of the main concept. The main concept is that everything in biology is regulated, that there is no "immovable mover" (no immovable movers evolution). The only reason why the focus have been placed on genes is because the rejectors of exceptionless regulation are claiming exemption for genes. Instead of "natural genetic engineering", the theory should properly be called exceptionless regulation. This does, however, absolutely not mean that there is anything wrong with the theory that is called natural genetic engineering.

Epigenetic activation of inactive DNAEdit

As shown in orphan genes, there is evidence for the existence of genes that are unrelated to any other (protein-coding) genes. They are also not randomly distributed in regards to their functions, being disproportionally often expressed in brains and genitals. This implies that "junk" DNA can be epigenetically transformed into proper genes, nonrandomly, for functional purposes. The abundance of "junk" DNA may be there to have an abundant reservoir of sequences to pick from.

Do the experiments properlyEdit

Experiments that supposedly prove that mutations are random, are in fact victims of false generalizations. Those experiments are really about introducing diseases or poisons that kills too fast for the organisms to have time to direct mutations. John Cairns experiments supporting directed mutations in the 1980s and confirmed by other researchers in 2006, on the other hand, were about malnutrition (only giving the bacteria food they lacked the genes to digest, in this case giving E.coli only lactose to eat), which gives more time to direct mutations. Not only must there be time to signal the error and change the gene(s), there must also be time to get the production of the modified protein up and going and distribute it to the relevant working groups of proteins. Several molecules are known to interact directly with specific locations in the genome, molecules chemically resembling ones known to affect the risk of cancer when intaken more diffusely. That mechanism should be able to locally alter mutation probabilities. Mechanical changes of the structure of the DNA spiral, a known part of epigenetics, also almost certainly affects the vulnerability of the DNA by making it more or less exposed. And as shown in "Bacteria evolved way to safeguard crucial genetic material", there is evidence that mutation rates do differ between parts of the genome, falsifying the dogma of mutation rates only being able to change over the whole genome and not locally.

Experiments where bacteria did not direct mutations to adapt to antibiotics can be explained by the fact that antibiotics hits the cell membranes, which are the "brains" of cells. Cell membranes regulate the environments inside cells, and regulation of the environments inside cells is what manipulation of the biochemistry of cells (such as directed mutations) is all about. See also the explanation about cell membrane channel quantum superposition in the "Omniplentitude of initial guesses and science" in brain. Claiming that directed mutations are impossible because cells with knocked-out cell membranes do not create any directed mutations is like formulating a "central dogma of technology" about inventions being impossible because inventors knocked unconscious make no inventions.

It is likely that those quantum guess effects can cause chemical reactions that creates single prototype molecules for necessary functions. Those prototype molecules can then be tested in their functions and, after having proven their functionality, be reverse-coded into the genome for mass production. This is similar to the fact that prototypes are built in non-serial labs and workshops while the mass production is made on production lines.

Evidence that mutations during problems disproportionally target parts of the genome relevant to the actual problem can not be downplayed as mere hypermutability. Hypermutability refers to accumulation of mutations because cells are too weak to protect or repair their DNA properly. That only gives an increased mutation rate all over the genome. If the increased mutation rate is not evenly spread across the genome nor targets arbitrary parts, but actually targets parts relevant to the problem that caused it, then it is undeniable directed mutations. Claiming that it is not directed mutation just because it does not necessarily create the right mutation immediately is as silly as claiming that inventions does not exist because inventors have to perform experiments and test somewhat different varieties of their ideas.

Phyletic implicationsEdit

Polygenesis revisitedEdit

This means that originally different genomes that converge (becomes more similar) will have very similar gene sequences but more different numbers of sequence repetitions. Such patterns have, among others, been discovered in humans, explaining anomalous fossils that the Out of Africa model cannot explain. In fact, the contrast between similarity of genetic sequence and differences in repetition count is far greater than anything random mutation theory can possibly explain. There is no way random mutations should have favored repetition count changes that much over sequence changes. Comparing maps of what parts of the genome has the most sequence repetitions in different human populations to the parts of the genome where different early types such as Neanderthals and Denisovans differ from modern humans is recommended to study this. For older fossils such as Dali Chinese, Solo Man and Rhodesia Man fossils, where the genome is heavily degraded, proteinome comparisons can be used instead. If you have done any of these tests, please write the results here. As shown in moderating the Gaia/Medea debate, this is NOT an argument for racism at all. Furthermore, there is evidence that extra load of disused DNA does disappear over time. And if duplicated-genome fish had not reproduced with other fish whose genome had duplicated independently of their own we would not have been here today at all. To a somewhat lesser extent, such a pattern of similar sequence/different repetition count have also been documented in butterflies, supporting a convergent origin for them as well.

Reproductive species barriers- not in our genesEdit

Lizards from different islands in the Martinique island chain are known to produce fertile offspring together even though their genomes are so different that believers in the molecular clock thinks that they diverged 4 million years ago, almost as much as the same model says about humans and chimpanzees. On the other hand, there is two different forms of starfish that cannot interbreed at all despite their genomes being so similar that the same model claims that they diverged just 6000 years ago. Experiments with irradiation shows that fruit flies can sometimes reproduce up to 20%(!) mutated DNA (by comparison, estimates of the difference between humans and chimpanzees range from less than 2 to slightly more than 5 percent, the lower figure being measured with the method most similar to how the fruit flies were measured), while some fruit flies became sterile at almost the first mutation. Fruit flies also expend much of their energy flying, meaning that lifeforms without that energy expenditure may take even more than 20%. So clearly the cumulative model of speciation is wrong. The single key mutations model instead have the problem of how the mutated individual is supposed to find a mate. The problem can be solved by non-random mutation control by which multiple individuals make themselves the same mutation simultaneously.

The fact that life, including mammals, reproduce successfully in Chernobyl despite the fact that radiation levels there are much higher than the maximum compatible with fertility according to established theories, also shows that something is wrong with gene-centered fertility theories.

The whole gene-determinist theory of reproductive species barriers predict that accumulation of mutations should increase genetic diversity in populations until they became sterile and died out. If most of the DNA was junk, there would, since the differences were not expressed, be no way to avoid the problem by carefully choosing mates either.

The larva stage of insects may come from hybridization between insects and some wormlike lifeform (hybridogenesis).

There is also studies of two types of finches in Australia distinguishable only by the color of some feathers. Hybrid batches contain 5 times as many males as females for some reason. But when the feathers was painted so that the birds believed that they were the same species, the offspring assumed the 50/50 sex ratio of non-hybrid batches, showing that it is the placebo effect (also known as the sugar pill effect, when treatments have effect simply because the patient believes in them) that determines reproductive species barriers. And why should it not? It is, after all, enzymes that regulate how chromosomes fold, and enzymes are known to be affected by the placebo effect. To test this theory further, study behavioral differences between sterile hybrids and the few hybrids of the same combinations that are fertile, and then see if sterile hybrids can be made fertile by learning them to change those behaviors. This theory predicts that the behavior linked to fertile anomalies should be optimism combined with willingness to give up the specific strategy and changing strategy, since that is what drives rebalancing of chromosomes, neither giving up nor insisting on any one particular strategy.

Since even single cells can solve problems and therefore have opinions, the theory that the placebo effect is what determines reproductive barriers is not contradicted by fertilization studies of organisms with external fertilization like fish. It is just that with internal fertilization, the opinions of the whole organism also shapes those of the single cell.

There is fossil evidence that the Great Rift Valley in East Africa was not a barrier against migration as well as migrations across it still observable today. The rift valley is not demarcated by any unbroken cliff walls, there are numerous almost flat slopes that can easily be passed, and since the rift formed gradually the erosion have developed at the same time as the rift was deepened and widened. So there is not even any logical reason to expect the rift to ever have been any barrier against migration. This means that human ancestors cannot have been separated from chimpanzee ancestors by a geographical barrier against migration. This is another falsification of the dogma that new lifeforms can only emerge through geographical isolation, showing that human evolution were started by something else. Chimpanzee habitat ranges also overlap gorilla habitat ranges (as shown on any map of ape habitat ranges), and there is no plausible candidate for a geographical barrier ever having separated them.

Similarity/difference patterns too complex for the "tree of life" modelEdit

There are cases of genetic difference patterns being difficult or even impossible to fit into any parsimonious tree (countercladistic affinities). Such cases include those where different parts of the genome appears to have different phylogenies. These anomalies can be explained by directed mutations guided by problem-solving clever cell membranes. Why there are a significant number of cases that can be fitted into parsimonious trees of phylogeny can be explained by internal self-adaptation. When some traits have changed, it may be necessary to change other traits as well to fit them, which can cause chain reactions of internal self-adaptations. That makes the continuity appear broken, which can easily be misinterpreted as a parsimonious phylogenic tree.

See also Origin of language