Our results indicate that resistance can be due to one structural change in the coding region of a single gene and that evolutionary change in anthropogenically challenged natural populations can be rapid.
My comment: Structural changes to the coding region of all genes are nutrient-dependent. This article was published in 2011 and it ignored everything known to serious scientists about the obvious links from non-coding RNAs to nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in the context of the physiology of reproduction in all living genera. For example, the physiology of reproduction enables fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the organized genomes of all vertebrates. All other nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions are linked to the substitution of achiral glycine in the GnRH decapeptide of all vertebrates. The nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions are linked to all vertebrate biodiversity in morphological and behavioral phenotypes via GnRH and the creation of other receptors that link food odors and pheromones to reproduction in all vertebrates.
See: Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction
See for contrast: Toxic river means rapid evolution for one fish species
The mutation responsible is a small one — a six base pair deletion that produces a protein just two amino acids shy of the normal receptor… It’s easy to see both how random mutation could cause a six base pair deletion — and how big an advantage fish with just the right six base pair deletion would have in a PCB-contaminated environment.
My comment: It has never been possible for any serious scientist to see how any random mutation could link any base pair deletion to two amino acids in a protein that links the creation of a new receptor to survival of a species. However, the fact that it is not possible to link base pair deletions from ecological variation to ecological adaptations has not been addressed by neo-Darwinian theorists. Instead, they have taken the pseudoscientific nonsense of their ridiculous theories even further.
See: Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system
After 96 hours of incubation of AR2 and Pf0-2x at room temperature on SMM, two breakout mutations were visible, conferring first slow (AR2S and Pf0-2xS) and then fast (AR2F and Pf0-2xF) spreading over the agar surface (Fig. 1A). The AR2F strain produces flagella, but we could not detect flagella in electron microscopy samples for AR2S (Fig. 1B). Genome resequencing revealed a single-nucleotide point mutation in ntrB in strain AR2S, causing an amino acid substitution within the PAS domain of the histidine kinase sensor NtrB [Thr97→Pro97 (T97P)] (13). The fast-spreading strain AR2F had acquired an additional point mutation in the σ54-dependent EBP gene ntrC, which alters an amino acid (R442C) within the DNA binding domain (Table 1 and table S2).
My comment: These researchers are among many others who never learned the difference between a nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution and a mutation. Not all of the biologically uninformed researchers could possibly have been taught to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense taught at Berkeley.
That suggests there may be a global influence of neo-Darwinists that prevents rapid scientific progress because theorists will not acknowledge the fact that there are no beneficial mutations. Nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions have always saved species from extinction caused by mutations to their organized genomes.
The nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are required for DNA repair, which links supercoiled DNA to protection from virus-driven entropy. Entropy causes all pathology. In the case of the “PCBs in Atlantic Tomcod from the Hudson River,” it was obvious that the PCBs led to a proliferation of viruses that led to the entropic loss of the six bases, which Berkeley portrayed as if it was a magical six base pair deletion.
Where did the deleted base pairs go? And why were two amino acid substitutions linked to ecological adaptation in the toxic environment of the Tomcod, and to weekend evolution of the bacterial flagellum?
Why are reports like this one still easy to find?
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes
…here are a buttload of animals in the middle of getting their evolve on. Well, seven anyway.
My comment: Who cares how many examples of evolution are provided? None of them include what is known about how atoms must be linked to ecosystems in the context of what is known to serious scientists about physics and the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically-constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry.
See for comparison to Berkeley’s pseudoscientific nonsense:
A Multi-Megabase Copy Number Gain Causes Maternal Transmission Ratio Distortion on Mouse Chromosome 2
My comment: Copy number gains are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man.
See also: Research challenges Darwin, shows how a gene cheats Mendel’s law of segregation
Reporting that nutrient-dependent copy number gains cheat Mendel’s law of segregation or that they challenge Darwin’s “conditions of life,” extends twenty years of pseudoscientific nonsense more than 15 years into the 21st century.
See also: Rapid evolution of citrate utilization by Escherichia coli by direct selection requires citT and dctA, which was reported as: reported as: Similar Data, Different Conclusions.
If you let them, the theorists will use definitions, assumptions, and inferences to continue to try to convince you that conclusions should be based on semantics, not science.