Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 173 of 457 (707991)
10-03-2013 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by PaulK
10-03-2013 1:55 AM


Re: Back on topic
The problem is that your argument has a serious hole in it, and has from the start. It is necessary for your argument that any increases in diversity are insufficient to raise a new species to the level of diversity found in modern species.
This is a misstatement... "insufficient to raise a new species to the level of diversity found in modern species?" I'm not sure I even know what you are talking about. If you are using the term "new species" to refer to new varieties or breeds or microevolution, as I am, then their "level of diversity" IS the level of diversity found in "modern species."
But you've found no argument for that except the one that it somehow interferes with the formation of "species" - but you cannot offer any reason why.
No, that is not a hole in my argument, it is simply hard to get it said what is really going on. If a reduction in genetic diversity is necessary to the creation of new varieties or breeds, which it is, and if the creation of new varieties or breeds or "species" is the very stuff of evolution, which it is, then an increase in genetic diversity is obviously of no value whatever, AND all you are doing is increasing and decreasing to no purpose. An increase in diversity through mutation MIGHT become the genetic basis for a new trait, IF it actually occurs which is questionable, but even if it did, for that trait to become part of a new "species" it has to be selected, become part of a population that is reproductively isolated from the rest, and that's where we get a REDUCTION in genetic diversity. As the new traits are selected and become the basis of the trait picture or phenotype of the new population you are getting a reduction in genetic diversity. You got a new trait but then it got selected it and we end up with reduced genetic diversity anyway. Adding genetic diversity is never going to get you past the necessity for reducing it to create a new "species." And I realize that this too no doubt doesn't say it much more clearly yet.
You are likely to object to the part where I say that the creation of new varieties or breeds or "species" is the very stuff of evolution, so I have to go on to point out that much of the argument here revolves around the evolutionist assertion that microevolution just smoothly transitions into macroevolution, meeting with no hindrances, but if reducing genetic diversity is necessary to microevolution, which it is, then there is one big fat hindrance right there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2013 1:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2013 11:40 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 180 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2013 12:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 174 of 457 (707992)
10-03-2013 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by NoNukes
10-03-2013 11:08 AM


Re: Back on topic
ALLELES, not "genes." Back later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 11:08 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 11:34 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 183 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2013 2:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 457 (708012)
10-03-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Tangle
10-03-2013 11:48 AM


Re: Back on topic
All this is Faith, is what we Brits call 'a statement of the bleedin' obvious.'
Yes, it IS obvious, what's not obvious is that it applies way beyond the specific bottleneck instances you want to consign it to. It's a principle that applies to ALL formations of new "species" or breeds, that's what I'm claiming, because they are all formed by the reproductive isolation of a portion of a population, whether by human intention or random geographic isolation or migration or natural selection or whatever. I'm claiming this same situation is what "speciation" is too, and that being the case you have a situation of reduced genetic diversity right where you need to have the opposite if evolution were a reality.
If 2 organisms split off from a population, become isolated but continue to breed it's bleedin' obvious that the genomes of those two will have less diversity than the genomes of the original population.
The same is the case if ten or a hundred or even more split off, depending on how large the original population was. In all these cases you are going to get reduced genetic diversity AND the formation of new phenotypes because of the new allele/gene frequencies, and when a phenotype becomes characteristic of the new population after some number of generations of inbreeding you are going to have a new genotype too, that may or may not be able to interbreed with the former population but you will have a new "look" to the new population, a new phenotype shared by the individuals in that population that is different from the look of the mother population. I'm just repeating all this of course, to head off the tendency to try to make the bottleneck situation something different from all these other situations. It's not.
No-one disagrees because we know that that creates a genetic bottleneck...
Yes, good and fine, but what you DO disagree with is my claim that ALL the ways a new breed or race or variety or "species" is formed come down to the same basic principle as the bottleneck.
...and it's one reason we know that Noah's flood did not happen 6,000 years ago - because that genetic bottleneck does not exist.
You guys really need to get on the same page about this, because I've many times argued down this very point, but then somebody will come along, as someone did earlier on this very thread, and claim that is NOT how you all expect the Flood bottleneck would show up. But leave it at just "one reason" if you like, the answer I've given many times is that according to the creationist model I have in mind, there would have been a great deal more heterozygosity in all populations of animals and humans back to Eden, that accounts for an enormously greater ability to vary and form new breeds than we see today; and the percentage of heterozygosity would still have been much greater even after the Flood in spite of the bottleneck because it was SO great originally. It would have been greatly reduced after the Flood but that would not be recognized now because there is still sufficient heterozygosity for all the variations we see today.
The current percentage of heterozygosity in the human genome has been estimated at 6.7%, which is enough for all this variety. But if it was even ten or twenty percent after the Flood that would be a great reduction from Eden's possible fity or ninety percent or whatever it was, but still a lot more than we have today and quite enough for all the variety that has developed since the Flood. In iother words what the bottleneck would have done is drastically reduce the heterozygosity of the genome.
That's what happens today but the reason it's a problem today is that it is a far less heterozygous genome that is being further reduced. So you get extremely homozygous genetic condition of the cheetah and the elephant seal today. But the genome before the Flood was heterozygous for so many more traits that the bottleneck would not have reduced it as drastically as a bottleneck today would. Therefore you don't see the signs of a bottleneck because the effects would not have been the same then as they are now, it would have greatly reduced the heterozygosity, there would have been much more homozygosity, but to nowhere near as much as we see today. Again, I said this earlier in the thread and somebody claimed this is NOT how the bottleneck would be recognized genetically. Well, many others on other threads, and now you, have affirmed that it would be. And now I've answered it again.
The point you are missing is that whilst those two individuals contain less genetic diversity than the population they came from, all other things being equal, they will have the same amount of genetic diversity as any other two individuals in the population.
Of course. How could I be "missing" that fact? My focus is on what happens in order to get new breeds or varieties or "species," and you could get MANY different breeds out of the same population by selecting out many groups of individuals in small numbers and isolating them. In all cases what happens is that a small number relative to the greater population, (ABE: which of course has less genetic diversity than the greater population) gets reproductively isolated and inbreeds.
That's the case with the development of any variety, and again it doesn't have to be SUCH a small number for the principle to be true. If the original population was large enough then you could get MANY varieties or breeds out of it simply by selecting out any small number of individuals relative to the original population and inbreeding them. Each new population will have its own peculiar allele frequencies and develop its own peculiar new "look" or population-wide phenotype after some number of generations of inbreeding among themselves.
I don't know the exact history of course but it seems to me that is how the hundreds of different cattle breeds would have developed. The original wild cattle could have existed in the millions, but every time a small number (it could be a few or a hundred or even a few thousand from such a large original herd) -- every time a small number is taken out to be bred separately it's going to develop its own characteristics from its own reduced genetic diversity, its own new allele frequencies. I'm sure there was a lot of mixing going on over the centuries but in the purest scenario all the breeds could have been developed simply from their own reduced gene pool cut straight out of the original population. You don't need mutations. Mutations are redundant in this scenario. The built in genetic diversity of the original wild population is more than sufficient to have created all the breeds we see today.
The individuals have not lost diversity - they just don't have access to a larger genetic pool anymore.
Exactly, and if they are isolated and inbreed over generations that's how you get a new breed, and it's always going to have reduced genetic diversity with respect to the original population. And again it can be many more individuals than just two and the same principle will apply.
If they survive, they will recover genetic diversity through mutation and carry on in their own way finding a best fit to their new environment. But this will take thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands - if they survive (and the likelihood is that they won't.)
Yes it would take thousands of years if this happened, but in fact creatures formed from such a tight bottleneck can be fairly healthy and go on surviving, such as the cheetah and the elephant seal, although the individuals are now pretty much clones of each other. In a non-disease-ridden world there would be no threat to them at all.
But my claim is that ALL new breeds develop according to this same principle. (and I consider the cheetah and the elephant seal to be breeds though I know the fact that they were formed from just a few individuals gives them some other status in the eyes of science. Again I think science is missing the point. It shouldn't matter how the new breed is formed, if it has its own genetic picture to itself then its a breed unto itself.) They all come from a reduced number of individuals which of course as a group unto themselves possess a reduced genetic diversity from the greater population from which they diverged. It can be a large enough number so that inbreeding won't threaten their health and they will still develop a characteristic new "look" over generations of inbreeding, they sill still become a breed unto themselves. Some may lose the ability to interbreed with the original population and will get called a "real species" but isn't it obvious what an artificial idea that is?
The second part of your story is simply the hoary old tale of a super genome where every organism on the planet contains enough genetic variety to form into any species.
I used to be looking for some different kind of genome in the original Kinds or Species but I finally came across the information about the percentage of heterozygosity in today's human population and its ability to produce all the variety of human beings we see today. That clued me that the original genome looked exactly like our genome except that there was an enormously greater percentage of heterozygosity for all traits than we see today, such that even a bottleneck after 1500 years would still preserve a very large amount of heterozygosity and be sufficient to produce all the varieties of all the animals that would have developed since the Flood. Simple heterozygosity for many more traits is all the Super Genome had over today's genomes. And I also think it very likely that Junk DNA is mostly in reality a record of the bottleneck of the Flood which killed such a huge percentage of individuals, human and animal, including a record of all the deaths besides that as well that took functioning genes out of operation over the centuries.
That's a assertion which should be possible to prove, so please point to the peer reviewed science that proves it.
I don't know how a formerly greater heterozygosity might be proved, do you? If there is a way I hope some enterprising creationist who understands all this stuff far better than I do will come along and prove it and do the peer reviewed science.
AbE: I did many times propose a laboratory experiment that would at least demonstrate that developing new breeds always goes along with reduced genetic diversity and that eventually after many variations along any particular line, one population splitting off from a previous, you'll reach the point where there is no genetic diversity left for further variation. The experiment would involve collecting a few individuals of some creature that still has a fair amount of genetic diversity in its population, some small enough creature to manage in a laboratory but a sexually-reproducing creature and preferably one that produces offspring fairly frequently so as not to prolong the experiment. Something the size of a mouse or a salamander perhaps. Isolate them together in a large cage and let them inbreed for a few generations. See if they develop a look different from the original population and peculiar to themselves. Test the DNA to see how much homozygosity there is as compared to the original population. Then take a few individuals from the new breed and do exactly the same thing with them. And so on from that new breed -- or breeds if you are developing a number of breeds. Do DNA analyses on each. The prediction is that you'll eventually reach a point down any particular path of variation where you aren't getting new traits and the genetic diversity is just about depleted.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Tangle, posted 10-03-2013 11:48 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 10-03-2013 2:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 185 of 457 (708023)
10-03-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Tangle
10-03-2013 2:37 PM


Re: Back on topic
(and I consider the cheetah and the elephant seal to be breeds though I know the fact that they were formed from just a few individuals gives them some other status in the eyes of science. Again I think science is missing the point. It shouldn't matter how the new breed is formed, if it has its own genetic picture to itself then its a breed unto itself.)
So seals and cheetahs are breeds and deveoped from the very same original genotype.
So I needed to say that EACH was formed from just a few individuals? Seals in the one case, cats in the other. Really, that wasn't clear to you that I couldn't possibly have meant they both came from the same genotype? Is it any wonder I have to repeat and repeat and repeat the simplest facts so as not to be misunderstood considering that this absurd degree of misunderstanding is actually possible?
Amazing that you think I could go from getting four points right that would get me an A in a Biology 101 class and yet also think I could be saying something as absurd as that the seal and the cheetah developed from the same genotype. Now THAT's amazing.
Ah well.
I figured people would object to calling these bottleneck-created creatures "breeds" of course, but your misunderstanding is beyond anything I could have imagined.
Ah well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 10-03-2013 2:37 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Tangle, posted 10-04-2013 7:20 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 457 (708024)
10-03-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by NoNukes
10-03-2013 3:10 PM


Re: Back on topic
Either way though, it is pretty easy to say, 'I consider' when you don't have to defend your statement. In an evidence based discussion though, 'I consider' statements don't amount to anything.
It's a theory I have, a thought I have, that the severely genetically depleted seals and the cheetah really deserve to be called "breeds" and that putting them in any other category is an artificial definitional maneuver; the way they are defined makes it hard to make the points I want to make about the sameness of the basic principle and method by which all new breeds develop, and it seems me that the reasoning I've given IS a defense for regarding them as breeds: That is, I'm answering a definitional claim with a definitional claim based on the fact that all breeds develop from reduced numbers and therefore reduced genetic diversity. What sort of evidence would you have me produce in such a case?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 3:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 12:38 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 187 of 457 (708026)
10-03-2013 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ramoss
10-03-2013 2:51 PM


Re: Back on topic
Allele: one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome.
That definition must be from a recent Evolutionist Dictionary. The definition doesn't require saying HOW they arise, but if that's now part of it it's just something else I have to keep answering, because of course it's just another tendentious claim from the ToE.
An allele is an alternative form of a gene, no argument there. The gene itself is the location on the chromosome and that remains there while different alleles or forms of that gene occupy that place. It's very rare for a gene itself to be moved about or changed, if it ever does happen, and I recall that on the Genetics thread about year ago that someone clearly said that No, genes are not exchanged, only alleles.
Probably the simplest examples of alleles are the Mendelian dominant B for brown eyes and the recessive b for blue eyes so that if the two are paired side by side you get brown eyes, if two Bs are paired you get brown eyes and if two b's are paired you get blue eyes.
The B is an allele and the b is another allele, both for eye color which is the gene or location on the chromosome. This is the basic idea I have in mind in everything I'm saying. There is no reason to suppose any of it arises by mutation but if it occasionally does the pairings still get expressed in the same way.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2013 2:51 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2013 10:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 189 of 457 (708041)
10-03-2013 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by ramoss
10-03-2013 10:18 PM


Re: Back on topic
Mutation:
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.
Interesting how dictionaries can be written to prove anything, such as that mutations are mere "variant forms that may be transmitted to future generations." The ToE requires that it be so, therefore it is so. No such thing has REALLY been proven but they can now just define it into existence so that it convinces people that it has been. Pure word magic. Whoever has the power runs the show. It sure isn't truth and reality running the show.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2013 10:18 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2013 10:45 PM Faith has replied
 Message 191 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 10:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2013 1:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 193 of 457 (708045)
10-04-2013 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Coyote
10-03-2013 10:45 PM


Re: Back on topic
Actually you and the other creationists are trying to define various scientific terms out of existence, or to give them entirely different meanings.
Of course we are and it's a struggle against the evolutionist definitions which don't define things as we define them. Just to convey the simplest things requires me to qualify and qualify to try to get free of the evolutionist assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2013 10:45 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 12:56 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 457 (708046)
10-04-2013 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by NoNukes
10-04-2013 12:38 AM


Re: This isn't about the dictionary...
What you are saying is common knowledge and adds nothing to the discussion. THE WAY that cheetahs are to be classed with other breeds is what I've already said, that a bottleneck is simply one example of the way breeds are formed, by the reproductive isolation of a small number of individuals which naturally has less genetic diversity than the previous population. That's the similarity, I've claimed no other. The point is to talk about the method that forms breeds, not the condition of the breeds.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 12:38 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 457 (708048)
10-04-2013 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Coyote
10-04-2013 12:56 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Of course they shouldn't limit their dictionaries to what creationists prefer, but they SHOULD limit their dictionaries to what they actually know instead of defining things according to what the ToE requires them to infer. It may be that they actually believe it but it's still not right. They ASSUME that alleles are all created by mutations, and they ASSUME that mutations are the source of viable allelic variants, they do NOT know this, they assume it. 'cause the ToE needs it to be that way.
It's like Bible "translators" who write their own interpretations into the text. Yes, that happens in at least one modern version I know of.
You love to accuse creationists of basing everything on belief but the fact of the matter is that that's what evolutionists do but they are oblivious to it. And again what I've been arguing here is about actual facts in biology. Period.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 12:56 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:46 AM Faith has replied
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 10-04-2013 11:45 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 273 by saab93f, posted 10-08-2013 6:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 206 of 457 (708066)
10-04-2013 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by NoNukes
10-04-2013 10:46 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Not only do you not like the definitions or species, mutations, alleles, breeds, evolution, etc. -- until I and others called you on it, you pretended that those terms had the meanings you prefer and that we were mis-defining them.
What? Please provide a link to proof of this accusation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:46 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 12:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 207 of 457 (708069)
10-04-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Tangle
10-04-2013 7:20 AM


Re: Back on topic
As far as I understand what you're claiming, both species (etc) came from the same genome 4500 years ago - I'm intrigued as to how and why we can't see evidence for it.
I have no idea where you are getting such a ridiculous idea that I'd be saying such a thing. What you quoted offers no clue. They are separate species and nothing I said implied anything different that I can see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Tangle, posted 10-04-2013 7:20 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 457 (708070)
10-04-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Coyote
10-04-2013 11:03 AM


Re: What's wrong!
They are blinded by belief and dogma such that they deny and misrepresent reality, hoping somehow to make it appear to conform to their belief and dogma.
Good definition of evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 11:03 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Diomedes, posted 10-04-2013 12:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 212 of 457 (708076)
10-04-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Diomedes
10-04-2013 12:37 PM


Re: What's wrong!
Yes, indeed, projection, although a very primitive psychological concept that appeals to the sophomoric pedantic mind, does describe well enough what the evolutionists do as they accuse creationists of their own attitudes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Diomedes, posted 10-04-2013 12:37 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ringo, posted 10-04-2013 12:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 457 (708079)
10-04-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Percy
10-04-2013 12:29 PM


More or less a summary perhaps
I've always used the creationist understanding of the various concepts that evolutionists define differently, it's always required me to give a great deal of explanation in the effort not to be misunderstood. Mutations are considered to be accidents, and if they ever produce a viable beneficial allele it would be very rarely, and the research that supposedly proves that they do is not convincing. Alleles are built in from Creation, and if any are ever produced by mutations it would be a very rare event, which it seems to be. And so on. This is not just a definitional word game, this is a completely different paradigm about biological reality, and the objection to the dictionary definitions given is that they are what 3evolutionists believe, not what they've actually proved.
And I'm very happy with my view of speciation, far from trying to distract from it. I believe it's just another instance of the way all new varieties are formed.
As for your statement that "we do not see" daughter populations that do not have an allele or alleles unique to themselves, I think you would probably be hard pressed to prove that. Simple change in allele frequencies has been generally understood to be all that's required to produce new phenotypic variations.
And yes, this whole topic has been way off topic all along. I've enjoyed it myself.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 12:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 1:28 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 217 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 1:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 218 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 1:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 219 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 3:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024