The GUToB

dear Syamsu,Thanks for your contribution. I think you have a good point. I will think about. For now, genes that do not directly jeopardize reproduction if such genes are lost, are referred to as genetic redundancies. Genetic redundancies are already part of the GUToB, so (genes affecting) reproduction can easily be integrated into the GUToB. Do you have a proposition how to fit in?Best wishes,
Peter

So, PB, what is your definition of species?

Peter B,Thank you for response as you opened up a couple more points for me.Firstly and most improtantly!
"Where did you get the impression that I advocate conventional interpretations of species?"So either wj is right or you have placed your theiory over a DIFERENT framework of biology. I feel this should have been made clear from the start that your acceptance of what a species is different from mainstream biologists as it apears you are refering to GUToB in relation to current theories!A few more points I would like to clear up;"However, are you suggesting that infertile organism --whatever the reason for infertility-- do not belong to the same species?"Tetraploid plant species, as all good biologist know, are (eccept for very rare casses) very fertile! They cannot be back crossed to their parent linage of diploids and produce viable offspring! Thus using accepted theories are diffent species."PB: These are NO new species. All info has been duplicated and is present as N=4. So what, every dividing cell goes through a stage of n=4 (G2 stage). Does that imply that you are made up of two distinct organisms?"This sounds like a statement born from ignorance, as I know you are not I will right this off as a moment of falability (or simply trying to manipulate the truth to suit you own argument)."PB: The info has been duplicated. If you copy a manuscript containing 1000 bits of info, do you end up having 2000 bits of information? I don't think so. However, such plants may be stronger --virulent?-- than the WT due to more backup copies of genes and enhanced expression."There is not twice as much room for genetic material (information so as these plants reproduce the information contained in these 4 sets begins to vary meaning that a tetraploid plant will have more, varied material than a diploid. The extra genes are NOT coppies of the original genes after a few generations so evolution IS selecting plants with MORE genetic information!!!And to top it off, people are finding NEW genes in blackberies! Remember that they originated from limmited genetic stock (this is why they are such a good example) when they arived so these are NOT genes that have been hiding!GUToB is looking rather battered right now.Looking forward to peoples thoughts on these isues,
Bald ape

Dear BA,If you give me the refernces of all your statements I will respond to you in more detail.But, as stated in the last sentence in the GUToB, the theory is still new and requires a carefull scrutiny. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.Best wishes
Peter

Hi WJ,
Somewhere in a letter to Buddika I made up a definition of a 'kind'/ archetype/original MPG.BW,
Peter

And your definition of species is ...? And it now looks like an explanation of how your species ties in with archetype / kind will also be necessary.[This message has been edited by wj, 01-28-2003]

Hi WJ,Kind = archetype = original MPG = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA.Best wishes,
Peter

Umm, why would the GUToB need a definition of species and kinds? I thought that your original proposal was that original MPGs=phylum archetypes. The arthropod archetype you mentioned to me earlier, and all those trimmings from it that results in termites, crabs, trilobites, and scorpions. What happened?Maybe you should start consulting a naturalist. They will be able to help you refine the organismal concept of GUToB.

""Where did you get the impression that I advocate conventional interpretations of species?"So either wj is right or you have placed your theiory over a DIFERENT framework of biology. I feel this should have been made clear from the start that your acceptance of what a species is different from mainstream biologists as it apears you are refering to GUToB in relation to current theories!"Observation made by me.""However, are you suggesting that infertile organism --whatever the reason for infertility-- do not belong to the same species?"Tetraploid plant species, as all good biologist know, are (eccept for very rare casses) very fertile! They cannot be back crossed to their parent linage of diploids and produce viable offspring! Thus using accepted theories are diffent species."Any good biology book that covers genetics.""PB: These are NO new species. All info has been duplicated and is present as N=4. So what, every dividing cell goes through a stage of n=4 (G2 stage). Does that imply that you are made up of two distinct organisms?"This sounds like a statement born from ignorance, as I know you are not I will right this off as a moment of falability (or simply trying to manipulate the truth to suit you own argument)."Wow, this is an obvious observation!!!""PB: The info has been duplicated. If you copy a manuscript containing 1000 bits of info, do you end up having 2000 bits of information? I don't think so. However, such plants may be stronger --virulent?-- than the WT due to more backup copies of genes and enhanced expression."There is not twice as much room for genetic material (information so as these plants reproduce the information contained in these 4 sets begins to vary meaning that a tetraploid plant will have more, varied material than a diploid. The extra genes are NOT coppies of the original genes after a few generations so evolution IS selecting plants with MORE genetic information!!!"Any good biology book with genetics in it (or a good school biology book)!!!"And to top it off, people are finding NEW genes in blackberies! Remember that they originated from limmited genetic stock (this is why they are such a good example) when they arived so these are NOT genes that have been hiding!"This is from a friend who is studying horticulture, I do not have the quotes on me now but WATCH THIS SPACE this is gona be fun!!!!So the fist points have been referenced so feel free to comment on them It looks like you are trying to dodge the points I raised, rather pathetic really unless, of course, there is a reason for this!!Bald ape

Dear BA,I've been on this board now for about 6 months and if you are under the impression that I am not able to handle these remarks, you are wrong. However, I like to have a scientific refernce if you make a an extraordinary claim. And, sa you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. SO if you provide me with a refernce where scientist demonstrate that they found genes in tetraploid blackberries that are unrelated to already known genes in diploid blackbarries, than I have to admit that the GUToB has been falsified and I will adapt it. However, I think such genes are not present. So, here you have a chance to overturn the GUToB.
Of course you maybe able to demonstrate a gene that has been created in the MPG through (NRM) shuffling of preexisting DNA elements, but that is GUToB (as observed for the Wallibi's on Hawaii).Best wishes,
Peter

PB, any comment on message #3?

Hi WJ,For example, coelacanths appear in the fossil record about 400 million years ago. Different, but still identifiably coelacanth species still exist. Coelacanths appeared before tetrapods. So, for example, humans, as a (distantly) derived species from a common fishlike ancestor with coelacanths, should have the same or fewer genes or "genetic information" than coelacanths.PB: There are several GUToB possiblities. 1) The coelacanth lost all redundancies and/or mechanism to induce variation, 2) it didn't get the right environmental input for adaptative phenotypes becasue its environment never changed, or 3) most likely, combination of 1 and 2.Seeye mate,
Peter

Isn't the coelacanth closer to the vertebrate archetype or mpg because of its much earlier appearance in the fossil record? Why would it have lost all its redundancies?You're just making it up as you go along, aren't ya, mate?

Hi WJ,Isn't the coelacanth closer to the vertebrate archetype or mpg because of its much earlier appearance in the fossil record? Why would it have lost all its redundancies?PB: It may have lost the redundancies and/or mechanism to induce variation since there was no environmental constraint to keep it in the genome. The loss of DNA elements is a general and often OBSERVED phenomenon.I don't make it up. It is all in the GUToB. As you can see it has an answer to all biological questions and it can explain all biological phenomena. It is a very good theory.Peter

Dear Bald ape:Bald ape says: "And to top it off, people are finding NEW genes in blackberies! Remember that they originated from limmited genetic stock (this is why they are such a good example) when they arived so these are NOT genes that have been hiding!"
This is from a friend who is studying horticulture, I do not have the quotes on me now but WATCH THIS SPACE this is gona be fun!!!!PB: Tell your friend to study hard and to provide you with a reference. [If he tells you that there are space aliens (reminds me of Page) on the dark side of the moon you also belief him, don't you?]Bald ape: So, the first points have been referenced so feel free to comment on them It looks like you are trying to dodge the points I raised.PB: Your references don't go beyond "Any good biology book with genetics in it (or a good school biology book)!!!". Not very compelling.By 'good' you mean mainstream evo-based biology books for the gullible that confirm what they have already been fed on 'mind control'?Best wishes,
Peter"The answer is in the details"