Hi Adrie, Thanks for the clarification. I think you missed my points so I will restate them below.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:04 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark. > > [Mark] > Evolution, as it is used in biology, is based on the development of > species within an observed niche. The species adapts to fill that > niche in the most effective way. A koi pond is such a niche. In such > a case, man is part of the evolutionary pressure, no different from > the amount of rain in a rain forest. Some like to treat man as > separate from nature, but I think this is a false paradigm. Man is > nature, and as such contributes to evolution within a niche. If a > giraffe wanders into the desert, it will not survive, neither will an > orchid. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Adrie > What really happens is this.I will simplify the example. > Every known species has a natural mutation frequency. > Therefore "Mutation" or the ability to mutate, is a normal species > behaviour. > Mutations will happen in correlation with the environment, or without. > > > In nature the Koi's developed also,the pattern to mutate to very nice forms > with > stains and different colors,in latency, this ability was always present in > their DNA, > but nature itself filtered them out in natural environments. > It became a recessive genetical factor in the DNA,...but taken into a pond, > isolated from nature, it was not a big trick, to crossbreed them back with > relatives, in an incestual relation > to make them show their ability to make the recessive factor dominant again. > > This time however, it is not filtered out. [Mark] My point was, that man is nature. There is no difference between a Koi pond, and one untouched by man in terms of evolution. If you subscribe to this notion that somehow man goes against nature, then perhaps you should rethink your position. What is the difference between man creating a desert (through a dam for example), and the climate changing to create a desert? There is no difference, None. Do you know how much bacteria cross-breed? Do you think that their DNA always contains the same "ability" as you put? Abilities are being defined all the time. Species are always under construction; this is not a passive world that depends on DNA or RNA sequences. > > > (Mark) > > Epigenetics involves, in part, the covalent modification of DNA > through reactions such as methylation. Such methylation patterns > acquired, do the the environment, can be conferred to offspring > according to current theory. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > (Adrie) > > Bi-covalent modification of traits, without altering the DNA_RNA engine > coding, > will stay bi-covalent just because of this restriction. > > I already talked about mutations triggered by radiation,chemics,...etc. > The act of methylation, is changing the environment as such that the > modification or change > will accept this as a pre-cursor to modify itself. > So its a bit of an evolution within evolution,evolution capable of evolving > within itself. > But , without altering the DNA, we cannot ever speak of a new species,take > it back to nature > the filtering will kill it. > > A giraffe in the desert,? i did not make a proposal like that,nor do i want > to launch the idea > of kicking a polar bear to Ethiopia,... > I'v clearly meant to say,place it back into its natural environment.Don't > change the variables. [Mark] Natural environment? What is that? What is an unnatural environment? Does such a thing contain positrons instead of electrons? Evolution evolving within itself? It is all evolution, I am not sure what you mean by the sub category. My point was that traits and inheritance is not as simple as it was once thought. There is a big impact of the cytoplasm, and the nucleoplasm. Did you know that much of our DNA does not code for proteins? It may have functions such as regulatory, but such DNA and RNA is not for expression of phenotypes in the conventional sense. You present genetics as it was understood over 30 years ago, much has changed. DNA methylation has regulatory functions. A parent who has lived through famine, can transfer traits for fat storage to their offspring that they assumed during a single lifetime. It is not just genetic sequences anymore. There may be places in the DNA where it can force its own evolution and the environment is left out. Perhaps you know this, but your post may be misleading to some. Cheers, Mark > > > > > parser > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
