| happydolphin said: I read the E.Coli article and didn't comment on the phylogeny yet so hold your tongue. In the E.Coli article, the gene needed to consume citrate was dormant. I'm hoping this isn't the case for bacteria to human evolution. Otherwise, how did the dormant gene get there in the first place. This isn't very complex stuff tbh. Easy question, do you think you're more intelligent than I am? EDIT: My concerns about in-breeding in mammals and the constraints to intra-species cross-breeding are still not addressed. Odds are they will never be, because evolution is not the answer. |
Exactly, you only addressed one aspect of my statement. Probably because you didn't even read about phylogeny.
No, you didn't read the E.Coli article because that isn't what it said at all.
"The ability of the Ara–3 E. coli to chow down on the alternative food source took at least three steps to develop, carried out over more than 13,000 generations.
Step one, which the researchers call potentiation, set the stage for developing the citrate-eating ability.
Step two, called actualization, was much more obvious; a stretch of DNA containing a dormant gene for moving citrate into cells was copied and the copy was inserted near the original gene.
Step three, refinement, took another 1,500 to 2,000 generations (about a year in the lab, or 30,000 to 40,000 years worth of human evolution) before the bacteria could make full use of the new food source."
Genetics isn't complicated? LMFAO. I can say with 95% confidence that I am more intelligent than you are, yes.
Inbreeding an cross-breeding don't have anything to do with evolution. This is now the 4th time I've said this. If I have to say it again, we're done here.
