Elmer,
Elmer writes:
What I have said is that 'genes'do not DETERMINE phenotype.
Yes, and it is a wholly absurd statement. In message 3, Dr Adequate gave you the example of blue eyes being determined by genetics, and you chose to ignore him. Your "no determinism" claim is just wrong.
You talk about the difference between "determination" and influence" as though every single phenotypic trait was affected by epigenetics, and this is something that you have not demonstrated.
Elmer writes:
All racehorses run fast, that's why they are called racehorses. They are also called racehorses because the only time their speed differential matters is when they are in races against other horses, where the fastest horse wins.
No, that's not right. The article you cited suggests that other factors are at work, namely training.
Elmer writes:
Long story short, genetics [breeding] are not what determines selection [winning/losing]
Did you even read the article? It says;
quote:
Based on the lifetime earnings of those foals, they concluded that genetic links to previous champions had only a small effect on the amount of prize money--less than a 10% correlation.
So genetics still seem to determine a <10% advantage. That is determinism. Selective advantages in nature don't have to be large to have an effect. The only thing that your article proves is that artificial selection is not perfect.
Elmer writes:
Now you are trying to say that genes are still determinist; just that their determinism stops at birth, when external environmenat factors take over. Most scientists today would say that developmental factors begin shaping the offspring long before birth. Epigenetic factors [illness, starvation] in the parent can set the 'developmental stage' even before conception. Which again contradicts genetic determinism.
How do you propose to tell the difference between epigentic effects and post-birth environmental effects? Your article gives us only this to go on;
quote:
such as the farms where the horses were raised and the trainers employed to teach them how to race, exerted a considerably bigger influence--as much as a 90% correlation.
This suggests that both might be at work. If only post-birth training is involved, this whole horse race article is completely irrelevant.
To be sure, the revelation of epigenetics has been a bit of an upset, but it has only altered the synthesis, not destroyed it, as you seem to want.
Elmer writes:
It never surprise me any more to hear just how oblivious to the implications imbedded [sic] in their own work some scientists turn out to be.
Yeah, it must be comforting to be so much smarter than those dumb scientists. If you are so much better at science than professional scientists, why don't you take it up yourself?
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2