"Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
news:cfg2sd$n9h$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> in article cfdfd9$2tep$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkomo871{at}comcast.net
> wrote on 8/11/04 8:53 AM:
> > In other words, isn't it the DNA that has by far the strongest influence on
> > the final phenotype?
>
> No.  You don't seem to get the point that development is a consequence of
> the interplay between genome and the embryo's (fetus's...) external
> environment.  The information guiding that development exists in both
> places.  Fraternal twins have different genomes and share most factors in
> their external environments during gestation (and to a lesser degree beyond
> that).  Consequently, the interaction between genome and environment is
> different for fraternal twins.  If you take embryonic clones and rear them
> in different environments they develop differently.  Under your logic that
> would seem to demonstrate that phenotypic differences are caused strictly by
> the environment, but of course that is not the case.

Dr. Hoelzer,
You may wish to Google for /bovine frozen embryos/ both for your own
knowlege and to correct the misinformation you have fed poor Hendricks474.
I mention this in this context because I doubt that the huge international
commerce in embryos is motivated by a desire to get the poor little things
to the optimal prenatal environment.  Instead it takes place because
agricultural interests with a lot of money invested have come to believe
that genetics is important, particularly over multiple generations, whereas
any almost womb will do the job.
---
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 8/14/04 4:27:04 PM