The article (abstract linked below) exemplifies nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution in yeast. Feeding the same species glucose or galactose results in 1.88 million unique transcript isoforms.
In my model, adaptive evolution is thermodynamically controlled by nutrient uptake, which results in organism level thermoregulation due to the metabolism of different nutrients (e.g., carbon sources, like sugars) to pheromones. The pheromones signal species-specific population density in species from microbes to man.
Extensive transcriptional heterogeneity revealed by isoform profiling
Abstract excerpt: Our findings have implications for genome compaction, evolution and phenotypic diversity between single cells.
My comments:
Genetically homogenous populations of yeast cells were grown in two conditions.
1) with glucose as the carbon source;
2) with galactose as the carbon source.
In a genome containing 6,000 open reading frames, the authors report detection of approximately 1.88 million unique transcript isoforms (e.g., 776,874 supported by at least two sequencing reads defined by a unique combination of end sites at single-nucleotide resolution).
If nutrient-dependent adaptive evolution were not pheromone-controlled, accumulated mutations might result in species differences. However, there is no evidence for that! There is also no model for that. Instead, in species from microbes to man, adaptive evolution and species diversity is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
Who does not agree that they’ve been fed a story that is not consistent with anything now known about the molecular mechanisms of adaptive evolution? I think that most people have been fed something that has become increasingly distasteful, and the story is scientifically unpalatable (e.g., as feces are to intelligent humans). But many people seem willing to keep feeding the same story to others rather than to examine what happens when different sugars are fed to genetically homogenous populations (i.e., the same species) of yeast.
For contrast, in my model, the different sugars are nutrients that result in differences in pheromone-controlled reproduction (e.g., in species from microbes to man). Perhaps my model will help others to watch what they eat, and stop them from attempting to digest a ridiculous theory or from regurgitating it (i.e., mutations theory).
