hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: green edge appearing in yellow = mit rec!

zonneveld wrote:
RE:>>Again not a single argument why my explanation of a green edge appearing in a
yellow plant is wrong let alone an alternative explanation.

Good morning, Ben.
I can't speak for Jim Hawes or Joe, but I can speak somewhat about the scientific method of investigation.  I think that in this country, if a researcher makes a bold statement, posits an hypothesis, or similarly takes a position that is contrarym or posits a new explanation, to a previously recognized phenomena, it is my understanding that that researcher has the obligation to provide research evidence to support that hypothesis.  This is not for others to do.  You're the one with the theory, so asking Joe is simply asking you to provide support.  Seems reasonable enough.  Fortunately, there does seem to be a fair amount of literature reviewing this topic and quite a bit that is supportive. You are not alone.

Since it is not up to others to prove that you are wrong but up to you to prove that you are right, you're having lots of questions proffered.  Others MAY choose to perform research that lends support to or refutes the hypothesis, but until the hypothesis is either substantiated by valid and reliable research by both the researcher themselves AND others, the hypothesis may not be well accepted. You know this, I'm just reiterating for clarity.

With that said, I will say thank you for pointing us to the web for further research on the process of mitotic recombination.  There IS a lot of info on this, and these sites may be of interest to others in search of questions or answers.


Of those I read, this next one provided info that seemed most germaine to this discussion from the view point of researchers examining similar phenomena.

A good one for this lay investigator was the following site that provided substantial definitions and explanations of what mitotic recombination IS--an important element for understanding of this discussion.

And this one, that helps to explain what a gene is (yes, that would be good to understand):

Because I do want a little sleep tonight, this one focuses on the mitotic recombination and homologous recombination, perhaps exactly the phenomena to which you refer.  I don't know if it is safe to draw the conculsions that you draw, but that will be left up to you and others who know what they are doing.  http://www.rochester.edu/College/BIO/Ray_Research/Ray_home3.html

Finally, having access to the genome map for A. Thaliana helps investigators better understand the researchers and their results.  There is even some modicum of hope for me!

However, now that Bevie has brought up frogs, I am having some difficulty envisioning the DNA of a frog, held out end to end, that stretches over a length of about 10 meters and coming from a single cell that I could barely see.  Just how does that work? :-)

Andrew Lietzow
#1 Plantsman at http://hostahaven.com
1250 41st St
Des Moines, IA 50311-2516

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index