Replies

I don't need to establish that EVERY cellular response to a stress involves the use of error prone DNA polymerase to illustrate WHY error prone DNA polymerase is expressed in a bacterial cell during stress.

No, but it is to support your assertion that it is directly involved in the response to insult.

Care to describe to me how some 8% or less of the bacterial genome can be a “tote bag” for innumerable ‘discarded’ mutations for every possible gene in the bacterial genome for every possible stress it might encounter?

No, it only has to tote some things.

Besides if you even agree that there IS such a thing as novelty in evolution - as Shapiro posits - why would it have to come from some “tote bag”?

It doesn't just have to come from the tote bag. But there are things that are important to have. Speaking of bacteria, their tote bag also involves the outside world. So the bacterial tote bag carried within the cell can be smaller than otherwise. If you had listened to the lecture carefully, you would understand that.

Wrong. Some genes involved in the “unfolded protein stress response” are decidedly involved in A stress response - but would be entirely inapplicable during other stress responses.

There isn't just ONE stress response.

But error prone DNA polymerase is a stress response gene.

It apparently only “totes” a vanishingly small amount of DNA - how does that small amount of DNA cover the numerous genes that must be modified via mutation from error prone DNA polymerase?

You really think 8% of a bacterial genome can “tote” all the information needed to have the appropriate modifications of every single bacterial gene to every conceivable stress?

So it doesn't HAVE to come from the “tote bag”.

OK then - can you explain to me again why bacteria have a gene for an error prone DNA polymerase and why it would be expressed during stress?

Your ‘answers’ where they are coherent, contradict each other.