stevestory
Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote | 96 PaVNovember 22, 2016 at 4:42 am “A simple Mendelian trait.” Is a ‘transposon’ a “simple Mendelian trait”?
That the transposon is handed down from one generation to the next is almost entirely immaterial. What matters is how it arose.
Now your pet theory, really hypothesis, is RM+NS. I argued that, to the contrary, it was likely some directed effect caused by some kind of environmental cue.
As I mentioned, Barbara McClintock’s work with “jumping genes” (transposons) led her to the conclusion that these transposons were NOT random mutations. IOW, RM+NS is off the table. So, you were wrong. (Point mutations were ruled out as being causitive in this paper)
There is likely some kind of set of internal mechanisms that react to the environment, with the transposons being part of these mechanicsms. That means we’re dealing with an ‘epigenetic’ origin of the mutation. You are simply wrong here–other than your assertion that changes brought about in one generation are then transmitted to the next. What a surprise assertion that is! Does the transposons have any choice in being handed down? And, if this insertion occurs in an intron, I think terming this a Mendelian trait misses the mark.
As to Haldane, I invite you to look it up yourself if you’re interested. It’s up to you to prove that what I stated is wrong. Otherwise, what I said stands.
97 wd400November 22, 2016 at 12:46 pm You’re wrong about almost everything here, I’m afraid. I don’t know if it’s just your ignorance or motivated reasoning, but neither seems curable… | linky
|