Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
Tim Tyler wrote:
> > There is more than one way to define "gene". A definition
> > as one base pair can be a useful definition. One book I read
> > defined gene something like this: part of a genome.
> > Thus by that definition, a gene could be a collection of
> > bits of DNA (even on different chromosomes, I think)
> > that coded for a set of proteins that worked together
> > to produce some particular trait or behaviour. [...]
>
> It appears that you found an unorthodox definition of the term
> "gene", that contradicts much established usage in biology.
You're a deceptive fool. First tell us the, supposedly, orthodox
definition. You can't because no such definition exists.
>
> Maybe McGinn has that book as well. Care to name and shame?
You first. Put up or shut up.
Jim
.
- References:
- Hamilton's rule
- From: Catherine Woodgold
- Hamilton's rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
