This is a sincere post. Please don't make the oft' justifiable assumption that you've one of those posters that come in pretending to ask questions when they're really just trying to trip up the pros. I'm a plebe, quite literally. I'm bringing it over here so as not to drag a thread off topic.
In
a post on another thread I made the following two statements:
Reproductive success is the gold standard of genetic perfection; in other words, there is no template for what a gene should look like.
There is no mechanism to correct "excessive" neutral and beneficial genetic variation.
To this I recieved this
response from RAZD:
So as long as the organisms with new and old neutral and beneficial genetic variations continue to survive and breed with success such mutations will continue to spread and change and spread and change and ... etc.
I would be under the impression that I fully understand what was meant if I wasn't finding it impossible to suss any contradiction between this and what I said. I don't know how to elaborate on this to actually form a cogent question. Help!
Secondly, to kurseu,
Wiki is indeed a wonderful friend; I couldn't post without it. Wiki and Google make up 98.7% of my friends. (Yes, I know I've just implied that the remainder of my friends amounts to only 2.6% of an entity or accumulated parts thereof.)
My only understanding was that "specialization" (sorry, totally goofed that) is defined by sexual separation (which makes me and Ronda Kalowinski separate species). As bacteria don't have sex .
Now I know, thanks.
P.S. for Admin: I know this won't make for a whole topic, but I didn't know where to go. Coffee House?
Edited by lyx2no, : Confess my unworthiness.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling and missed words
Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
™ Version 4.2