A “new” view of evolution sans mutations
January 15, 2013 | James Kohl
Excerpt: “…Dodd … found that changing the diet of a fruit fly could alter the flies’ mating choices after just two generations.
“When I read this, I started jumping up and down,” Rosenberg said. “It had to be the microbes. I just knew it. Nothing else could explain such a rapid change.”
To prove this, Rosenberg got his PhD student Gil Sharon to try replicate Dodd’s results. Sure enough, after two generations, flies fed on molasses would no longer mate with flies on a regular starch. Next, Sharon gave the flies rifampicin to kill off their bacteria. Afterwards, starch flies happily copulated with molasses flies, showing that bacteria were indeed responsible (PNAS, vol 107, p 20051).”
My comment: Doesn’t this prove that speciation is nutrient chemical-dependent and pheromone-controlled? Is there any reason to believe that the molecular mechanisms involved are not epigenetically effected by nutrient chemicals and their metabolism to pheromones in every species on the planet?
See also: Bacteria can drive the evolution of new species Published online 1 November 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.575
Note: It is not the bacteria that drive evolution of a new species, it is their metabolism of nutrient chemicals to species-specific pheromones that drives evolution. It is not random mutations, and never has been. Is there a simpler “proof” that makes those who think that random mutations cause adaptive evolution appear even more ridiculous? If there were any evidence to suggest that random mutations caused adaptive evolution I could not have concluded that “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans.”