Comment Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score 1) 2035
I certainly don't want to imply that I'm a biologist or by any means an expert, but I have seen a lot of examples (especially on /.) of people who clearly haven't done the work to chase down the relevant information before claiming that an entire field of science has done inadequate work. I'm afraid I've misinterpreted your efforts. I'm sorry about coming on as strong as I did.
You're exactly right, there are a lot of trolls and opinionated posters who don't do their homework. A lot more people would just drop this thread rather than admit they misinterpreted something. It says a lot about you that you didn't do that. Thanks.
Agreed. What I was seeing before is that to call something a "new gene" you seem to want it to appear all at once rather than adding to some existing (atlhough possibly not active) DNA. I think that we disagree here, since mutations can certainly be additive and must necessarily make use of (or rather, become part of) the DNA that's alredy there.
Actually, this is something that you have helped me to clarify. I was drawing a distinction between shuffling/transposition and "true mutation". Now I realize that my definition was wrong. Genetic changes are mutations. Period.
OK, if we did acquire the genes elsewhere, then that is certainly an alternative possibility to the idea that the accumulation of minor changes didn't do it. That would support an alternate theory, but I don't see how it casts too much doubt on mutation as a source of variation.
Looking back, I probably overstated this, but the point is still somewhat valid.
You're exactly right, there are a lot of trolls and opinionated posters who don't do their homework. A lot more people would just drop this thread rather than admit they misinterpreted something. It says a lot about you that you didn't do that. Thanks.
Agreed. What I was seeing before is that to call something a "new gene" you seem to want it to appear all at once rather than adding to some existing (atlhough possibly not active) DNA. I think that we disagree here, since mutations can certainly be additive and must necessarily make use of (or rather, become part of) the DNA that's alredy there.
Actually, this is something that you have helped me to clarify. I was drawing a distinction between shuffling/transposition and "true mutation". Now I realize that my definition was wrong. Genetic changes are mutations. Period.
OK, if we did acquire the genes elsewhere, then that is certainly an alternative possibility to the idea that the accumulation of minor changes didn't do it. That would support an alternate theory, but I don't see how it casts too much doubt on mutation as a source of variation.
Looking back, I probably overstated this, but the point is still somewhat valid.
