Complexity of gene codes (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, August 28, 2010, 04:25 (5201 days ago) @ David Turell


> > This is precisely what I mean by "...should be able to force evolution artificially without need of reproduction or intervening generations."
> > 
> > Where my confusion still lies in interpreting your thinking, is, if we have agreement that Stimulus-->epigenetic response-->Natural Selection is the "correct" model... then I don't see how your thinking is actually different than the current textbook model. 
> 
> The usual interpretation of evolution is that, a' la Darwin, it is in slow tiny steps. Our difference in interpretation is speed. I believe large jumps can occur and it is usually the way evolution proceeds. Small changes are reversible adaptations, like Darwin's six species of finches, with beaks adjusting cyclically with climate changes in cycles.-Okay... I think, coupled with your post in "Ain't Nature Wonderful" I think I FINALLY understand you;-1. Adaptability is a necessary component to life, as much as reproduction and respiration. -2. Adaptability itself isn't something you view as "creatable by chance."-These two underpinnings seem to be the hinge. -Assuming I have this right, I need to get some clarifications. -First; how does your epigenetics differ from stimulus/response? An example would make this more clear. It has been demonstrated that the human body of baseball pitchers modifies itself to what the pitcher does best; bones thicken and provide more surface area for muscle attachment, thus allowing for faster pitches, for longer games. To me, this would read as an "epigenetic" trait, because this is an inherent ability that will get passed to his offspring. (The ability to change, not the bone structure itself.) The same thing when I exercise; I tear muscle, get weak, and then my body repairs more strongly. To me, it seems your epigenetics aren't differentiable from these physiological processes. Could you explain the differences you see, if any?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"