RE: CULT:Sports--anyone?
- To: "'i*@onelist.com'"
- Subject: RE: [iris-talk]CULT:Sports--anyone?
- From: M* M*
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:07:01 -0500
From: "Mark, Maureen" <markm@tc.gc.ca>
I think that we're talking about population genetics (and evolution). When
I studied it (almost 20 years ago), there were three theories -- the balance
theory, the classic theory and the neutral theory. I wrote a paper on the
neutral theory, so it's the only one that I think I can explain.
These theories all offer explanations on genetic variation. The basic
difference in the theories is that the Balance Theory says that variation is
good (i.e., ensures continuation of the species), the Classic Theory that it
is bad (i.e, variation is lethal) and the neutral theory that it is neither
good nor bad.
In the neutral theory, genetic variation is caused by random mutations of
DNA pairs that do not affect the overall functions of the organism. The
more mutations there are, the more variable the species, and the more likely
the species will survive any environmental changes.
Now, to apply this to iris, means that even daughter rhizomes attached to
the mother rhizome will not be genetically identical. Given the number of
cells being replicated, it is probably safe to say that at least one DNA
pair will have been altered. So for sports, sufficient DNA pairs have been
altered to affect the appearance of the iris.
Does this make any sense?
Maureen Mark
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (zone 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good friends, school spirit, hair-dos you'd like to forget.
Classmates.com has them all. And with 4.4 million alumni already
registered, there's a good chance you'll find your friends here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/2623/0/_/486170/_/954195324/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
