Hiya Terry,Hiya Terry,
...Anyway, I enjoy reading and thinking about genetics and genomics, but I did't like this sentence, "But the gene for robustness and species separation doesn't spring up over night."
It's too limiting. Many of these genes already exist, or are co-opted and modified from elsewhere in the chromosomes, or are regulated differently or at different times, etc. There are even bimodal states for some genes (depending on environment).
Well, that's my understanding of things in general; but I'm no expert in this area.
Here's an example of the kind of things I'm talking about. Maybe I'm reading too much....
....Genome Res. 16:1182-1190, 2006
I know I saw something on dual function for single genes, but...maybe later.
~~SA
Okay, I've been meaning get back about this. It was written at 3-4 am, so it sounds too blunt; and is a poorly written sentence (two disparate points related).
But you asked about why, so I wanted to point to the next line, "It's too limiting," as an answer.
Just the idea that a single gene (or even genes) could explain the fossil observations (and thus draw other conclusions) seemed to downplay other capabilities that the genome possesses, as well as other possible explanations of the fossils.
I enjoy thinking about anthropology and genetics, and I sure enjoy these threads. I wouldn't have felt comfortable being so loose with my language with many other people on these fora, and I think you know that; but I didn't want to leave that question hanging. Overall, at worst, it was written as an excuse to post those neat genome refs; and at best it was just a bad attempt to encourage more ideas about the topic.
Thanks for the Mungo info. too, everyone; I'd never heard about that stuff before.
~Later
~SA
