molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)

Even if you are able to falsify selection on a genotype within your genome orthoselection could still occurr. The condition would be rather that neither phenotype nor geneotype were supported by the database but we do not have even metadata to provide for this vision if I am currently uptodate. There could be a turn nonetheless in this logic which would not per say be "falsifiable" (past tense of falsify) in any sense of the word.

On the same basis I was not disabused inter alia of John Morris setting up a BIBLICAL bias. There is more to the C/E use of Dobshanksy than the one sentence in your post that passes on without the confusion in DObshansky's thought of the tree of life. Merely talking on molecular terms does not make this terminal ring species disappear. One needs a more profound historical synthesis than Provine provided and he spent 13 yrs building his last one.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear Readers
After reading Spetner's book I realised that all it would take to overthrow NDT is molecular genetic evidence against the mechanisms of random mutation, and examples proving the irrelevance of natural selection in the maintenance of the genome. Scientifically speaking, we need only one example that is not in accord with [/QUOTE][/B]Can you say then in Verne Grant's ideas from plants generalized with or without Stebbins, what is the measure of a difference of genetic variation and genetic difference per any genome that can be tested in actual populations? without prejudicing such things as the potential vegatative contribution to polypoloidy factors that even in terms of multiplication of species are often down played ?? The mutation rate is largely irrelevant to this way of framing the question I have remarked as you note yet a simple notion of the environment and future environmental chnages is not adequete in the answer where the internal and external "variable" needs denotation. I do not have the actual assement of this connotation which is the reason I ask a second time. Sincerely, Brad.