Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:42:52 -0400 (EDT)
"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e45stn$etc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
The distinction that Waddington made between 'developed in X' and
'selected in X' makes absolutely no sense if you interpret X to
represent the genetic environment experienced by a locus.
JE:-
Instead of attempting to intimidate why don't you supply the missing
argument which is supposed to verify what you wrote?
The genetic environment experienced by a locus doesn't change between
the time of development and the time of selection.
[snip]
John, you have wasted a lot of words saying that
1. Waddington was an important scientist.
2. He was interested in development.
3. He was something of a voice in the wilderness regarding the
importance of epigenetics and epistasis.
I deny none of these points. My only point is that the paper by
Waddington which you posted does not involve epistasis. You have
repeatedly said that it did. You are wrong. And that is one of the
reasons why none of the professionals has responded to your challenge.
You wallow in confusion and refuse to admit your mistakes.
Good bye (until the next time ;-)
.
- References:
- Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- From: John Edser
- Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- Prev by Date: Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- Next by Date: Re: Sunlight and the Krebs cycle
- Previous by thread: Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- Next by thread: Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
