@swamidass @Art I have limited time to reply. I don’t know if my extensive quote from the methods section of the Nasvall paper was posted here or another thread. I am tol it was. These were the experimental manipulations used to carry out the experiment. The paper as it appeared in the journal did not include the methods in the main paper. They were in the Appendix. I assumed Art knew that and knew that saying they placed a bifunctional gene in a strain lacking his A and trpF function left out a whole bunch of stuff they did indeed create that bifunctional enzyme. It didn’t happened without som careful experimental work. To say it evolved is a very partial truth.
He and I, I am guessing, know what setting up the strains for the big evolutionary experiment involved. I was angry because at no point did Art acknowledge the engineering and experimental sophistication involved. For the non-geneticist observers, reading what he wrote would be misleading.
They would think that the bifunctional gene and the strain in which it was placed was completely natural, and that perhaps that all that was done was tochange the media. Not true.
@Art I apologize for my derogatory and excessive language. I was angry at what I perceived as deliberate intent to hide the necessary investigator involvement.
8 Likes