> > MR:-
> > "The gene for" does, of course, have a real meaning:
the enzyme or
> > control element that the unmutated gene, the wild- type allele,
> > specifies. But often, as yet, we do not know what the normal gene is
> > for. ... Pleiotropy. Polygeny. Perhaps these terms will not easily
> > become common parlance; but the critical point never to omit is that
> > genes act in concert with one another - collectively with the
> > environment.

> TT:-
> ...but that's stating the obvious.  /Everyone/ knows that.
> Biologists are supposed to add that qualification /every/ time they talk
> about the function of a gene?  That program is never going to get off the
> ground.
> You have to assume a minimal level of competence in your audience to
> be able to communicate at all - and the possibilty of interactions
> between genes, other genes and the environment is surely rather common
> knowledge.

JE:-
THE major matter that remains unresolved is the
gene as an independent unit of selection.
Thus "the critical point never to omit is that
genes act in concert with one another - collectively
with the environment" has two self _contradictory_ meanings
within evolutionary theory: EITHER these genes are
dependently or independently selected. Until this
major issue is resolved biologists are required to
add a qualification "/every/ time they talk
about the function of a gene" within evolutionary
theory.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/7/04 9:39:01 AM