Posted: Dec 21, 2014 11:21 am
by Rumraket
BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
And Summers' paper confirms that. So they were right.


No, the paper does not state that at all.

Yes it does, it's just that one of the mutations would be deleterious, not outright lethal.

So yes, the does in point of fact confirm that.

BooBoo wrote:It confirms that two mutations are necessary and, crucially, that "the mutations be added in a specific order to avoid decreases in chloroquine transport."

Yes, necessary for effective chloroquine resistance. Not necessary to avoid lethality, the mutation has lower fitness associated with it, it is not lethal. Lower fitness is not synonymous with instant extinction, evolution can in point of fact progress through periods of lower fitness. Some times, passing through a valley is required to find another peak in the fitness landscape. This is evolution 101.

See for example: http://pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/2014/07/death-of-fittest.html