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
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

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: HYB: pigments - review of plant parts

From the point of view of one who has been trained as a formulator of "Theory"
(albeit forty years ago), Darwin's formulation does not fit our current
understanding of the mechanisms of "Evolution."

The Theory of Evolution, were it to be restated in contemporary terms would
look at DNA replication and repair, random errors and occasional failure of
the "proofreading" process, and how these get sorted over time, or in the case
you cited, Linda, of the computer model of such a process.

The more accurate formulation of Evolution as a theory would be to say
something on the order of:

1.  Those genetic units (whether chromosomes, cells, or whole, functioning
organisms) that DO NOT reproduce or replicate are eliminated.  (This is an
internally logical statement.  Of course they are eliminated--they have not
produced offspring).

2.  Those genetic units (as above) which do produce offspring, but because of
internal make-up, have a reduced probability of replication or reproduction
have a proportionally weaker contribution to the perdurable (lasting, but much
stronger as a word than "lasting") data field (which in the case of living
organisms is the genetic pool).

3.  Those genetic units which do produce offspring in a manner more or less
normative to the data population produce offspring which include random
variances, those of which do not inhibit the replication or reproduction have
a high probability of entering the data field (the genetic pool).

4.  Those genetic units which produce offspring in a manner which yield units
of aggressive replication or reproduction have a proportionatly higher than
the normative group probability of perdurability (have more influence than the
norm on the future genetic pool).

Notice that number three allows for genetic "radiation" of types.
Characteristics which do NOT interfere with reproduction continue to remain in
the genetic pool.

A classic example of this is in our own back yards and city streets with the
variant types and color patterns of feral (wild) cats and dogs.  The random
element in "genetic drift" in isolated populations accounts for a part of
species differentiation.  Competiton among types or species is governed under

The phenomenon you mention, Linda, fits under #3.

Sure doesn't sound like Darwin, does it!

Neil Mogensen z 7 western NC mountains

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement