| dsgrue3 said:
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. |
You probably just copy-pasted the article, as that's pretty much all your limited intelligence allows you to do. You must've missed this part:
"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. The copied and pasted version of the gene started producing the citrate-pumping protein again. Before the duplication, E. coli couldn’t bring citrate into their cells to eat it."
You, my friend, are a tart.
EDIT: Saying inbreeding and cross-breading don't have anything to do with evolution doesn't make it true. It doesn't answer my concern at all, not in any way. When it comes to speciation (the generation of new species via evolutive processes), these constraints pose a BIG problem imho.
