Once the bacteria is adapted to the stressful environment it becomes the ‘default’ environment and then ‘normal’ would be a stress.
Apparently it went over your head as well because you cannot seem to explain the contradiction without further contradicting yourself.
Taking off for a long vacation.
Come back with a consistent and coherent position if you want to discuss the issue competently.
So what was the stress and how did the cell "know" it was a stress?
Once the bacteria is adapted to the stressful environment it becomes the ‘default’ environment and then ‘normal’ would be a stress.
So once the stress is answered and the stress is then removed, the cell reignites the error prone DNA polymerase fire? Ludicrous.
Apparently it went over your head as well because you cannot seem to explain the contradiction without further contradicting yourself.
Fooling yourself again.
Taking off for a long vacation.
You need it.
Come back with a consistent and coherent position if you want to discuss the issue competently.
That has been done. You just refuse to see it. Read James A. Shapiro.
The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates. We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random, localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid Genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures.
...
Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.