As I see it there are essentially two parts to this post. One is the recounting of the Spiegelman expeiments and the other comes across as an infomercial for Richard Dawkins' books.
All the stuff reccommending Richard Dawkins is extraneous, as indeed is any reference to his work other than as an attribution as your initial source of the experiment.
You should ideally be able to provide citation to the original published work by Spiegelman, at the present all we have is your third hand account of it.
I don't know exactly what paper Dawkins' cited but one possibility is...
which seems to discuss a very similar experiment, if not the actual ones Dawkins was referencing.
My own preference would be for you to shorten the post considerably to a concise recounting of the experiment, ideally from your own reading of the original work, and then to expand on your own views on the importance of this research.
This is interesting work and it deserves discussion, at the moment I find your OP too unfocused and Dawkins centric.
TTFN,
AW
™ Version 4.2