|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: The origin of new genes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi Faith,
I could almost hear Dr Adequate holding himself back in Message 145! 
Faith writes: Genetic drift, yes. OK, that's logical. Not empirically established, but logical. You're sure there's no empirical evidence supporting the idea of genetic drift?
A new genetic trait is a mutation by definition. Exactly, thank you. It doesn't have to be empirically demonstrated, it's defined into existence, it's assumed. How one interprets "genetic trait" depends upon context since a new genetic trait could emerge from a unique combination of existing alleles, but in the context that Dr Adequate intended a new genetic trait is a new allele or stretch of DNA, which *is* a mutation. It's the definition of mutation, Faith. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)
