One wonders if tomorrow you'll still be holding onto the above scientific falsehood (you know, you...that guy who claims that he always corrects himself to the scientifically correct facts).
Yawn...
Still not a worthy challenger for me on this thread...and I've even pinged your still-silent buddies a couple of times to help you and js1138 out.
Sigh.
"conjugation. ... does not create pairs of potentially dominant recessive genes." - VadeRetroWow! Damn! In the course of once again reminding you that a bacterium is not by nature a diploid organism, I once again failed to cover myself against the Tah-Dah attack.One wonders if tomorrow you'll still be holding onto the above scientific falsehood (you know, you...that guy who claims that he always corrects himself to the scientifically correct facts).
Note, however, that I long ago conceded that you found a form of dominance/regression in the PNAS article. You have simply reintroduced the same datum in the form of an article mentioning one possible origin of such. I already mentioned that, in the post you have been waving around.
Here's a hint for your next Google for your next "Well, how about THIS!?" I mentioned it as well in the same earlier post but I'll repeat it. Another source of "partial diploidy" will be "duplication mutations," the creation of duplicate regions of the genome during the transcription process.
Oh, that's right! You can't use that. Your thesis is that mutations don't exist.