Joanne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bernard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Joanne Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hi Pete,
> > >
> > > We may be going from biology into
> philosophy
> > here,
> > > but isn't the awareness of the cause
> > dependant on
> > > the view one takes? IOW, if African
> violets
> > > experience a mutation that affects leaf
> > pigment
> > > due to radiation (which happened), we
> tend
> > to
> > > think of it as the radiation causing
> the
> > mutation.
> > > However, if the mutation is a response
> to
> > the
> > > environmental change (higher radiation),
> the
> > > pigment change could be seen as an
> adaption.
> >
> > > *looks around and ducks*
> >
> >
> > Hi Joanne,
> >
> > Pete already covered most of what I would
> have
> > responded to your posts so I will not be
> > redundant. In your example, I think the
> problem
> > (as you say below) is a definitional problem.
> Both
> > cases are the same. The problem is that
> > "adaptation" carries a connotation that
> somehow
> > the mutation is going to be beneficial-- but
> in
> > fact, most mutations are not beneficial.
>
> Bernard,
>
> You seem to have an odd idea of what a
> conversation is. My posts are not endless
> repititions of the same point; I'm sorry if you
> read them that way. I said something, Pete
> replied and the post you are commenting on here is
> my response to that. You have not addressed the
> point I raised here at all. If you have something
> to add to the discussion, it would be welcome. If
> you aren't willing to read what I actually write
> and respond to that specifically, I wish you'd
> back off. I would have liked to have had a reply
> from Pete addressing my specific point here. :-(

I'm sorry if you feel that I have criticized you in some way. I did not intend to say that your posts were repetitious. What I said was that my responses to you at this point would just be repetitions of what Pete had already said and that would be redundant. It seems to me that I usually quote whatever I'm responding to. If you prefere I'll just ignore your posts.


>
>
> > > In the case of exposure to viruses in
> > particular,
> > > how we can be sure which is the cause
> and
> > which is
> > > the response?
> > >
> > > The trouble with many of these Internet
> > > discussions is lack of definition of
> > terms...it's
> > > not just in threads dealing with
> genetics or
> > > evolution.
> >
> > That is what I'm attempting to do with my
> posts in
> > "genetics" but then what is needed is for
> people
> > to read them.
>
> It's said that if someone understands something
> thoroughly, that person can explain it to a
> four-year-old child. There are people on this
> board from all sorts of backgrounds with varying
> amounts of education and varying amounts of
> proficiency in English. What I was suggesting was
> a very basic glossary, not competing defintions
> from experts.
>
> Joanne

What I have posted are the basic definitions by the people who created the modern synthesis. At times, as my exposition about the levels of adaptation, I feel that I should expound onmy own about a topic. Most of the time I prefer to cite articles and authorities on topics because if I have one criticism of Maat is that people run on and on about their own opinion on various subjects without presenting documented evidence. Just a quirk im a nut for footnotes :-).
Bernard