0337 Sections seven and eight (7 & 8) offer three ideations that dwell within the ambiguity depicted above.
Section seven (7) first discusses Poldmae’s theory of verse.
0338 Jaak Poldmae (1942-1979) considers poetry in the Slavic and German civilizations. To me, it looks like his interest in metrics goes with the signifier and his interest in poetics associates to the signified. Once these substitutions are made, the following derivative interscope is readily completed from the authors’ brief description of verse theory.
0339 While Poldmae may come unnervingly close to the old formalist habit of finding the literary devices, the above interscope is not a mere collection of mechanisms. Verse theory is an organic whole. Plus, the perspective-level category-based nested form looks like a clone of Marxist theory.
0340 To me, this begs the question, asking, “What happened to the content and situation levels of Marxist theory?”
Did they somehow deplete themselves?
Plus, the rubberstamper is uncharacteristically uninterested, because Poldmae asserts that poetry2c somehow corresponds to… or reveals… or depicts… the human condition2c.
Isn’t that what any Slav already appreciates?
0341 Section seven (7) next discusses the phenomenon… er… model substituting for the noumenon (?)… of intertextuality. Intertextuality delocalizes the poet, because the poet produces a text in relation to other (prior) texts. In a sense, a contemporary poet joins the conversation of other poets. The contemporary poet responds to the poetics and the metrics of… what?… civilization, past and present?
0342 Uh oh, remember Saints Cyril and Methodius?
Where did they come from?
The Byzantine civilization is a fusion of Greek and Jewish civilizations, made possible by the Christianization of the Roman Empire.
0343 Unlike America, Russia is not made of new cloth. The Slavic civilization is cut from old cloth, over and over again, in a theodrama that the American Empire simply wants to ignore.
Oh, I should say, “the USSA”?
0344 The term “intertextuality” is a beautiful Platonic term, offered by Julie Kristeva, a French linguist, that serves to cover over the perspective-level actuality of the following three-level interscope, in such a manner as to comport with the actuality2c of Marxist theory3c.
0345 To appreciate the rhizomic character of intertextuality, an inquirer may consider Razie Mah’s blog for August 2025, titled Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism”.
Zizek is a philosopher, not a poet, but he sounds like a poet some of the time. He writes like a poet, even though he doesn’t know it. Only a poet would make “Christ”, the adjective, and our human condition, the noun. Isn’t that what the story of the Garden of Eden tells us? We have been kicked out of the Garden because we can now challenge God Himself. Now, outside of His Domain, we are “a-” (“without”) “-theists” (“God”).
Does Zizek suggest that Christian Atheism can stand in for… material arrangements2c?
0346 As if to confirm, Zizek concludes with a reflection on Alexandr Blok’s poem, The Twelve, written in 1918, depicting Christ as a holy ghost leading twelve Red Guards on their patrol of revolutionary Petrograd. Of course, Soviet authorities later replaced the word, “Christ”, with “sun”, because they were too embarrassed to substitute in “material arrangements”.
0347 Zizek aside, intertextuality and verse theory both cohere to the reality of Lotman’s and Jakobson’s legacy. Plus, they do not cross the line that Lotman’s derivative interscope tunnels under.
0348 In section eight (8), the authors discuss the third post-Soviet approach, that of Juri Lotman.
The title of Lotman’s 1990 book is The Universe of Mind.
The title is somewhat funny, since the mind associates to the normal context and a universe resides in the corresponding potential.
0349 How so?
The “universe” is not the closed totality of material arrangements.
The “universe” is the open totality of semiotic arrangements.
0350 Open to what?
Messages.
Another term for “the universe of messages1” is “the semiosphere1“.
0351 On the content level, the normal context of a TMS positivist intellect3a brings the actuality of the dyad2a, {literary text2af [entangles] language2af}, into relation with the potential of ‘(positivist) meaning’1a.
On the situation level, cultural studies3b brings the dyad2b, {cognition2bm [substantiates] social interaction2bf}, into relation with the potential of ‘(civilizational) presence’1b.
On the perspective level, mind theory3c brings the dyad2c, {semiotic arrangements2cm [substantiate] human conditions2cf}, into relation with the potential of ‘the semiosphere’1c.
0352 Lotman’s derivative interscope stands right in line with Charles Peirce’s theory of evolutionary love.
The Universe of Possibility defines the category of firstness. Firstness contains a universe of messages.
The Universe of Actualities includes semiotic arrangements and belongs to the category of secondness.
The Universe of Mind3c brings the Universe of Actualities2c into relation with the potential of the Universe of Messages1c.
0353 Mind theory3c brings the dyadic actuality of {semiotic arrangements [substantiating] human conditions}2c into relation with the ‘semiosphere’1c.
Marxist theory3c brings the dyadic actuality of {material arrangements [substantiating] human conditions}2c into relation with the potential of ‘something to do with message’1c.
0354 Surely, Juri Lotman, as an old man, does not suspect that his mind theory3c stands as an alternative to Marxist theory3c.
Marxist theory3c contextualizes the message of Soviet communism1c.
The Universe of Mind3c contextualizes the semiosphere1c.
Welcome to the Fourth Age of Understanding.
0355 The concept of the semiosphere1c is an organic development of Juri Lotman and his collaborators of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics.
This explains why I claim, in point 0008, that there is more to this article than meets the eye.
This examination adds value to the authors’ article, in ways hitherto unimagined.
0356 In the following figure, the virtual nested form in the category of secondness is highlighted.
0357 The perspective-level dyad, {semiotic arrangements [substantiate] human conditions}2c virtually brings the situation-level dyad, {cognition [substantiates] cultural interaction}2b, into relation with the potential of the content-level dyad, {literary text [entangles] an aesthetic and positivist language}2a.
0358 Likewise, in the virtual nested form in the category of thirdness, mind theory3c brings cultural studies3b into relation with the possibility of the TMS positivist intellect3a.
0359 Finally, in the virtual nested form in the category of firstness, the semiosphere1c, the universe of messages1c, brings civilizational presence1b into relation with positivist meaning1a.
0360 The authors briefly discuss Lotman’s later books, which are translated into English long after his death. The authors note that these books treat issues that are rarely associated with the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, even when they place its collegial collaborations in perspective.
0361 Nonetheless, some scholars wag an accusatory finger and assert, “He turned into a post-structuralist.”
0362 “Post-structuralist”?
Technical terms are so important, especially when they mean ‘something’ that common folk don’t think they mean.
There is a gap, which cannot be crossed, especially by those subject to empirio-normative domination.
Well, at least, that is what the experts on television tell me.
“Post-structuralist” is a derogatory label.
Only experts know what the label means.
0363 The authors offer a quick summary of the questions that Lotman raises in these last works. First (1), can inquirers devise a common approach to natural, social and spiritual phenomena? Second (2), how is a mind theory3c paradigmgoing to handle evolutionary (think, Lebenswelt that we evolved in) and explosive (think, our current Lebenswelt) cultural transitions. Third (3), does artistic labor serve as a workshop that builds semiotic arrangements (as matter) into the human condition (as form)?
0364 Surely, these are appropriate questions.
And, not surprisingly, the pen of Razie Mah offers literary texts that touch upon these questions. They are (1) How to Define the Word “Religion”, (2) The Human Niche and (3) An Archaeology of the Fall.
0365 The authors conclude that a global history of semiotics will tell Lotman’s tale, as well as the complicated intriguescultivating semiotic awareness beneath the watchful eyes of Soviet Socialist ideologues.
But, as far as this examiner is concerned, these modern histories may also be viewed through a lens that focuses on an illumination that harkens back to the beginning.
A light dwells deep within Slavic civilization.
0366 I wonder. Is there is an unconceived reason for why the Virgin Mary appears in Portugal, in a town bearing the name of Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Mohammed and Khadija, and calls for the Catholic Church to consecrate her Immaculate Heart to Russia?
The visions happen in 1917, right before the Russian Revolution.
0367 In 2022, a Latin-tradition-despising pope, along with his reform-fixated Vatican-Two-promoting bishops, do precisely that. They consecrate the Immaculate Heart of Mary to Russia on March 25, 2022, at the same time when Russian (no longer Soviet!) troops enter into Ukraine. They invade in order to stop… what? Everybody in Russia apparently knows. Does anyone know in the Collective West?
0368 Perhaps not.
Is there a gap, which cannot be crossed?
Will a curtain of propaganda become transparent?
Or what?
0369 There is one more juxtaposition to make.
0370 The lower line should look familiar.
The triadic normal context of Lotman’s mind theory3a (now transcending Marxist theory3c) brings the dyadic actuality of {semiotic arrangements [substantiate] our current Lebenswelt}2a into relation with the monadic ‘semiosphere’1a,where the “semiosphere” is the potential of ‘the universe of messages’1a.
0371 The upper line is introduced in points 0355 though 0371 in Razie Mah’s e-book, Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024) (part 1, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
The triadic normal context of God’s Self-Actualization3c brings the dyadic actuality of {the Person who Speaks [utters] the Person who is the Word}2c into relation with the ‘Oneness of God’2c, where the “Oneness of God” is the monadic potential1c underlying God’s Self-Actualization3c.
0372 What does this juxtaposition inspire me to imagine?
Does it seem that the Speaker2c occupies the space for semiotic arrangement2cm?
Does it seem that Word2c, who creates the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (see Genesis 1-2.3) as well as our current Lebenswelt (see Genesis 2.4-10), occupies the space for the human condition2cf?
0373 Does it seem that God’s Self-Actualization3c encompasses a theoretical Universe of Mind3c?
Does it seem that the Oneness of God1c manifests the omnipresence and the omniscience of a universe of messages1c?
0374 It almost makes me wonder whether there is a post-post-truth condition.
0375 There is a story. It goes like this.
After the famous Russian philosopher, Marxist academic and scholar to be reckoned with, Juri Lotman, dies, he finds himself in a waiting room, in what looks to be an old Basilica. After a few minutes, the wooden door creaks open and he is greeted by St. Methodius, himself.
Lotman, confident of his own genius even in death, says, “Methodius, what can you tell me that I don’t already know?”
Methodius grins and says, “You’ve been working for us all along.”
0376 I thank the authors for this essay, published a decade ago, and fresh enough to support the fermentation of this examination.
0001 This essay comments on a 2017 book by biologist, Dennis Venema, and theologian, Scot McKnight. The title is Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science. The publisher is Brasos Press in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The book consists of two equal parts. The geneticist shows that Adam and Eve cannot be a single pair who founded the human species. The theologian wrestles with how to read Genesis in light of modern archaeology.
0002 My goal is to supplement these arguments in two ways. I will re-articulate ideas about evolutionary biology using the specialized language of the category-based nested form. I will present a scientific hypothesis that re-images the Adam and Eve stories as ancient Near Eastern fairy tales.
Perhaps, at the end of these comments, I can declare, “The old historical Adam is dead. Long live the new historical Adam.”
0003 Before I begin, I attend to some housekeeping items.
‘Words that belong together’ are denoted by single quotes or italics.
Suggested readings include Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form (#1), Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (#2), and the chapter on message in How to Define the Word “Religion”. These works, by Razie Mah, are available at smashwords and other e-book venues, along with the compilation of this blog, titled, Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome.
0004 In order to see where many evangelicals are coming from, consult the September 2010 issue of Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith. This particular journal of the American Scientific Affiliation presents a snapshot of some of the difficulties posed by the early chapters of Genesis.
0005 The 2017 book, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, addresses one conundrum with a simple admission: Adam and Eve cannot be the progenitors of all humans, as proposed by Saint Augustine, 1600 years ago. The admission rebukes Christians striving to locate the primal couple in a genetic bottleneck event between 50 and 150 thousand years ago.
0005 Unfortunately, their solution provides little defense for Christian doctrine. Big government (il)liberals (BGilLs) claim that evolution disproves the second creation story in Genesis, just like the mercantilists, fascists and communists before them. BGiLs also insist that the Bible is the stuff of myths.
0006 Evangelical communities continue to bleed students.
Why?
Original Sin.
Christians think it describes the human condition.
BGilLs do not.
0007 Christians believe that humans are disoriented. Jesus provides orientation. Jesus is the way.
For BGilLs, the human condition is perfectible through a never-ending revolution by an administrative state. The human condition may be fulfilled by knowing one’s self. Or, is it – constructing – one’s self?
With Original Sin, we are actors in a theodrama that transcends critical theory. Indeed, critical theory may typify the corruption of Original Sin.
Without Original Sin, we are foolish players strutting on the world’s stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. So why not accept the ministrations of a totalitarian government? Why not construct oneself?
0008 Adam and the Genome divides into two parts. Each part is about 100 pages long.
0009 In the first half, Dennis Venema, a biologist versed in genetics, lays out the case for the impossibility of a bottleneck in human evolution. Adam and Eve cannot be the first anatomically modern humans.
In the second half, Scot McKnight, an evangelical theologian familiar with ancient Near East literature, lays out the case against a historical Adam. No early Jewish or Christian writer, including the preacher Paul, regarded Adam and Eve as the biological ancestors of all humans, the parents of the species, whose DNA is sown into all living human beings.
0010 By “early” I mean before Augustine (around 400AD). McKnight does not elaborate how Augustine wrote the dramatic script calling for a historical Adam who is literally the father of all sinners.
Augustine’s script has been performed on stage for over one and one-half thousand years. What a run.
0011 The current examination separates the two halves. I consider each half in a very different manner.
0012 My metaphor goes like this: Each half is like a curtain, lowered in order to conclude the continued enactment of Augustine’s drama.
0013 Evangelicals have seen the play a thousand times. Eve is called “the mother of all living”. The serpent fooled her. Adam went along. Then, they had children, spreading their fallen natures to us all.
No wonder Evangelicals yearn for a biological historical Adam, a literal father of all living, that will prove the so-called “rational” BG(il)L zealots wrong. They know Augustine’s play by heart. Why can’t the show continue?
0014 Venema and McKnight theatrically lower these two curtains, one on either side of the stage.
They declare, “The play cannot go on. There is no biological historical Adam and Eve, from which all human DNA descends (with modification). Plus, the Genesis stories are similar to the literature of the ancient Near East. The Bible must be read in context.”
0015 Ah, but God’s grace is like a diva. If she cannot be on stage, she will take to the curtains. Read these comments and you will see. The curtains come alive.
0016 Dr. Venema tells a great story. He was raised as an evangelical, suspicious of modern evolutionary biology. He became a geneticist. The turning point came when he started doing research in the lab.
Research led to further study, eventually forcing him to confront the ideological roadblocks placed by his church’s tradition. He came to the conclusion that Galileo might be right. If there are two books, Darwinian evolution belongs to the book of nature. The theory has been tested over and over again.
0017 The theory of descent with modification yields counterintuitive truths.
For example, who would have thought that animals with backbones and four limbs descended from fish? As it turns out, the ancestors are not just any type of fish. The ancestral fish are lobe-finned lung fish.
0018 The fossil record does not stand mute. Several fossils are difficult to assign the label “lung-fish” or “amphibian”. These date to the proper epoch, long, long ago.
0019 Whales are a more recent example. They are mammals, so they must have started as land creatures. Somehow, they adapted to the deep blue sea. What a change.
0020 Now, I turn to the category-based nested form, wondering, “How does Darwin’s classical idea of descent with modification work?”
Amphibian land creatures are very different from their ancestral lung fish. Whales are amazingly different from any bear or hippo-like ancestor. Water-born fish adapt to the land. Land animals adapt to the sea.
0021 The word “niche” applies to an actuality, independent of the species, that the species adapts to. The actuality is real. Like land and sea, a niche is independent of the adapting species. The original species experiences this actuality as potential. The land and sea offer the potentials of new habitats.These potentials constitute the niche that the species adapts to.
Here, descent is assumed. Emphasis falls on the phrase “with modification”, because natural selection operates on phenotypic variations.
0022 Is there a certain “logic” to the Darwinian paradigm?
Two actualities stand out: adaptation and the actuality underlying the niche. They are related as situation and content, respectively. Two nested forms are required to model the classical Darwinian idea of descent with modification.
0023 Two nested forms?
The nested form is a purely relational structure, following the logic of Charles Peirce. See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0024 Here is a diagram for adaptation, as portrayed in the preceding discussion.
0025 The normal context of natural selection3b brings the actuality of an adaptation2b into relation with a niche1b.
0026 A niche1b expresses the potential of an actuality independent of the adapting species1b. The niche1b emerges from (and situates) a content-level actuality2a. For ancestral water-dwelling lung fish, the actuality2a was land. For the ancestors of the whale, the actuality2a was sea.
0027 According to classical Darwinism, adaptations2b are explained through natural selection. The niche1b accounts for modifications. Descent is assumed.
0028 At the time of Darwin, no one knew much about descent with modification. Darwin simply contended that the babes of a breeding pair would have similar traits to the parents. This much is obvious from animal breeding hobbies.
0029 Today, biologists know so much about the mechanism of descent that the niche is taken for granted.
Yes, the assumptions have been reversed.
0030 Venema explains descent with the analogy of a mother tongue over time. Spoken words change over generations. The English speaker of today would not understand the English speaker of 400 years ago.
Word spelling also changes over time. Treuthe went to truthe, then to trueth, then to truth. That ain’t no lie.
0031 Thus, spoken and written words show descent with modification over the centuries. Each subpopulation of speakers shifts word locution one way or another. Isolation between two subpopulations eventually produces two different – closely related – languages.
0032 How does this explain descent with modification?
0033 Ah, this is Dr. Venema’s area of expertise. His writing is wonderful. Read his own words. Especially, note the passages where he assumes the niche. The niche may be land, sea, as well as gunk in a waste pond. For a virus, a niche may be… say… bacteria.
0034 Now, I go back to the diagrams.
How does the role of DNA fit into descent with modification, as depicted by category-based nested forms?
0035 What are the actualities?
0036 DNA is one actuality.
DNA is like a book containing genes. Genes are recipes for proteins. Proteins build the body of a cell.
DNA also instructs the “reader” how to read the book.
DNA does not get rid of old recipes. Old recipes merely become unreadable through various substitutions, deletions, insertions and so on. New recipes may derive from old recipes. They may be fashioned, whole cloth, by new instructions.
0037 Let me say this in another way.
The genotype is the potential of a DNA book, complete with recipes and reading instructions.
The phenotype is the viral, cellular, or multicellular body that a DNA book is responsible for.
0038 The “body”, or the phenotype, is the second actuality.
Here is a picture of the content and situation levels for the science of genetics
0039 The normal context of the biological body3b brings the actuality of the phenotype2b into relation with the genotype1b.
0040 The genotype1b is the potential inherent in DNA1b. DNA2a is an actuality that defines the species2a.
0041 So, the key phrase is descent with modification.
0042 DNA2a goes with descentb.
The actuality underlying the niche2a accounts for relevance of the term, with modificationb.
0043 Phenotype2b emerges from (and situates) genotype1b.
Adaptation2b emerges from (and situates) niche1b.
0044 The fossil record contains clues to the phenotypes in any particular lineage. The fact that DNA retains unused recipes provides clues to the genotypes in any particular lineage. All new features gained by new species remodel already existing features of the originating species.
The fossil record also contains clues to the environment that a species adapts to. Presumably, these clues indicate an actuality underlying the niche2a.
0045 Venema fuses the two situational actualities, phenotype2b and adaptation2b, into a single actuality.
Phenotype2b and adaptation2b are two actualities that unite to form one: descent with modification2-combined.
0046 For example, consider the features that distinguish bats from mice.
If one examines the DNA of the bat and closely related species, one finds that their DNA differs in such a way as to explain the building of the bat body as opposed to a closely related mouse-type body. Random mutations in DNA occur every so often, so the researcher can estimate the time distance to a common ancestor between the bat and a closely related species.
0047 If one examines caves or other locations where both bats and mice dwell, one might find fossil intermediates between bats and mice. That would require a lot of luck and a keen eye.
0048 What does this tell us about research into the evolution of the bat?
Well, the DNA of bats and closely related species is readily available. The likelihood of finding fossils of ancestral mouse populations that adapted to flight is incredibly small, even though caves are ideal places for fossil formation.
0049 What would I do?
Of course, I would concentrate on the DNA story and take the niche story for granted.
0050 This is what Venema does with human evolution.
0051 I continue to roll with Venema’s text. I’m ignoring the niche. Rather, I am simply assuming that a niche is operating.
In chapter 3, Venema convincingly lowers the curtain on Augustine’s concept that Adam and Eve are the biological ancestors of all humans. He does so on the basis of DNA alone.
0052 DNA “remembers”, but not completely. Insertions, deletions and substitutions sometimes occur as DNA is copied. DNA is copied whenever a cell divides. Chromosomal pairs are sorted into single chromosomes when a sperm or egg is formed. Sperm and egg are united in the formation of a fertilized egg.
What does this imply?
The range of variation within the DNA of a species reflects the size of the breeding population. If a breeding populationpasses through a severe bottleneck, then the result would be less variability in DNA in subsequent generations.
0053 Venema shows that, for human DNA, the breeding populations never fell below several thousand. If they had, human DNA (at present) would show the typical pattern of a genetic bottleneck.
If that is not enough, during the Paleolithic, anatomically modern humans engaged in hanky-panky with two closely related species, the Neanderthal and the Denisovan.
0054 How else to explain the appearance of their DNA in some human subpopulations?
0055 Venema forecloses on the historical Adam imagined by Saint Augustine, where Original Sin passes from one generation to the next, through that hanky-panky business mentioned above.
0056 If there is a historical Adam and Eve, they are not the parents of all anatomically humans, living during the Paleolithic, over 50,000 years ago.
0057 In the next chapter, Venema notes that something remains.
0058 What about intelligent design?
0059 For me, the question should be: What about the niche?
0060 Advocates of intelligent design argue that DNA mutation alone cannot account for the dramatic changes found in the fossil record.
For example, the Cambrian Period starts with new body designs and highly modified versions of earlier body designs.
Another example is the immune system, which is very complex.
0061 Venema argues that these examples can be explained through methods other than simple mutation, such as insertion and doubling.
However, simple mutations remain foundational, because…
0062 …simple mutations produce evolution directly observed in the laboratory.
Here is an example:
0063 Imagine a culture composed of 1% of bacteria with receptor R and 99% with receptor S. The culture is then infected with a virus that latches onto receptor-R bacteria but cannot infect S bacteria.
Well, the virus kills all the R bacteria and that is that.
0064 Okay. Let me try that again, starting with 5% R bacteria and 95% S bacteria.
This time, the virus passes through enough generations that one mutated virus latches onto the S receptor. Now, the virus can further adapt to the presence of the S-receptor. The S-receptor bacteria start to die.
At the end of this petri-dish wipe-out, the virologists isolate the virus to see how it has changed. As it turns out, the latching protein changed by 5 amino acids, meaning that its original DNA underwent at least 5 separate mutations.
0065 Note how the virologist plays god. The virologist defines a niche1b. The 95% S bacteria constitute an actuality independent of the virus2a, offering the potential of exploitation in the normal context of natural selection3b.
0066 Here is an example of gene doubling.
Two different species of fruit flies express different suites of transport proteins. One has a single transport protein, deriving from a DNA-site labeled eclair. The other has two transport proteins, eclair and p24. The second recipe came from a doubling of the eclair DNA. Then, the second copy underwent mutations, resulting in the second recipe for a transport protein, p24.
0067 Next, entire chromosomes may double. Or they may break and connect to other chromosomes.
Large-scale gene duplications go a long way in explaining huge changes in phenotype. For example, animals with backbones came from animals with spinal cords without backbones.
0068 Finally, here is an example of the activation of a completely new recipe.
Nylon is an industrial polymer. In the 1970’s, Japanese scientists discover a bacteria that lives off of nylon in an industrial waste pond. The bacteria do so with a completely novel enzyme, which the scientists labeled nylonase.
0069 Venema concludes that intelligent design adds no explanatory value. Living forms have inherent creativity in their DNA. Simple mutations, gene duplication, and similar mechanisms account for descent with modification.
0070 Maybe, changes in genotype is the same as intelligent design.
0071 Eachstory about achange of genotype potentiating a new phenotype also is a story about an adaptation into a niche.
For the nylonase-producing bacteria, the niche is a waste pond full of industrial polymers.
For animals with backbones, the niche could be related to protection and movement.
For the fruit fly example, the niche may consist of proteins or molecules that were not previously transported. The transport protein related to p24 may be receptive to changes in an environment that is independent of the species.
For the S-receptor virus, the niche was a petri dish filled with lots of S bacteria.
0072 In all these examples, genetic changes would not have been of value if the phenotype did not exhibit an adaptive advantage. Genetic changes may have occurred. But, they would not have been remembered by later generations.
0073 What does this mean?
Phenotype2b and adaptation2b are two actualities produced by independent methods of inquiry. They inherently contradict one another. They also inherently complement.
0074 They intersect and form one actuality: descent with modification.
Here is my diagram of the intersection of adaptation2b and phenotype2b.
0075 Intersections are curious beings.
Classical Darwinism constitutes the horizontal axis. It assumes some type of inheritance, but does not know how it works.
Neo-Darwinism constitutes the vertical axis. It assumes the niche, and does not know how it works.
0076 Alone, neither classical nor neo-Darwinism can provide a full explanation of descent with modification.
Likewise, descent with modification cannot be reduced to one or the other nested form.
0077 Indeed, a miracle lies hidden within each intersection.
0078 On one hand, consider the virologists who find the right mix of R and S bacteria to observe the R-killing virus evolve to the S-killing virus. They do not know whether other mutations would have produced an S-latching virus. They can only account for the genetic changes retrospectively (that is, after the event). They could not have predicted what mutations would do the trick.
So, the genetic part is like a miracle.
0079 These scientists precisely define the niche. The resulting gene changes are what (miraculously) happen to occur.
0080 On the other hand, consider the geneticists who isolate the chromosomal changes between chordates without backbones and chordates with backbones. They may understand the DNA-altering mechanisms involved in these changes, but they cannot prospectively re-enact the niche that rewarded the phenotypes as adaptations.
So, the niche part is like a miracle.
0081 These scientists delineate the genetic changes. But, they have no idea how to reconstitute the niche. The niche is what (miraculously) happened to occur.
