Here’s a piece of advice - when in a hole, stop digging.
It’s not a hole at all, it is a matter of disagreement with a molecular biologist from the perspective of ethology.
Well actually meiosis is, fundamentally, a process whereby gametes (or haploid cells) are produced by the recombination and copying of the DNA sequence in the diploid germ cell, followed by segregation. To say that DNA has nothing to do with meiosis is like saying that petrol or gasoline has nothing to do with the internal combustion cycle.
I disagree. DNA in itself is not primarily responsible for phenotypic mutation. The most likely unit is the gene, or cistron, which to the molecular biologist is most likely represented by DNA. That doesn’t mean that all biologists accept that DNA is the fundamental unit of evolution. DNA isn’t long enough lived to represent evolutionary changes.
You might not, but ALL scientists do. That is because a mutation is a change between the parent and the daughter DNA sequence - that is just what it is - it is that and nothing else. I am afraid that you are making yourself look rather silly.
Not at all silly unless you just aren’t willing to look at something other than molecular biology. DNA changes can be mutations in phenotype, or not. Without phenotype changes there is no effective mutation even though DNA has changed. Basically I am saying that DNA is not the level of evolutionary change, the gene, cistron, probably is.
Oh really? I can see that you have read at least part of Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene and badly misunderstood it. Can you explain how you can assess the evolution of the gene without looking at DNA? Can you also explain how natural selection acts directly on genes, bypassing the organism? I don’t think you actually know what DNA, or genes, or chromosomes or alleles are.
One of us, or both might need to re-read Dawkins ( I think you need to). Evolution of the gene cannot be understood without looking at DNA, but that isn’t the main game in mutation. The organism is the least important part of evolution if you consider the effect of the gene. If you are so interested in the primacy of DNA in evolutionary changes why not go a step back to nucleotides? I bet you understand why not.
So, you are Dawkins fan. You have at least read the titles of two of his books. Whether you understand even the titles is doubtful. Can you explain for example how the concept of the selfish gene affects and is affected by the extended phenotype?
That question would take up a lot of bandwidth and time as you well know. Your condescension is not at all becoming of someone who would claim a scientific position. However, the idea of selfish gene and extended phenotype are complimentary in that selfish genes tend to favor extension of their influence beyond the organism to ensure long term survival of the gene. (That is not even remotely possible with DNA as the replicator.) The selfish gene is affected by extended phenotype in the same mechanism but in reverse. Extended phenotype ensures the survival of the selfish gene. The result is that the gene is very long lived, or even immortal. DNA does not enjoy that kind of longevity.
Since it is clear from what you have said that you don’t know what DNA is (you treat, erroneously, DNA and genes and chromosomes as though they were entirely separate things) we’ll let this pass. Except, I am tempted to ask you to define the “fundamental unit of evolution”. What does it mean and how would we know it when we find it?
The fundamental unit cannot be DNA because it is a short term player compared to genes. Molecular biologists tend to think in molecular terms which ignore many other factors such as longevity of the DNA, effects of environment, meiosis and mitosis, etc. I don’t know for sure what the fundamental unit is, but I am pretty sure it isn’t the DNA molecule, I am pretty sure it isn’t nucleotides, I am very certain it isn’t the individual, and I really think it probably is the gene.
The fact is that you’ve been caught pontificating about something that you know nothing about. There is no shame in ignorance, but there is considerable shame in pretending to be an authority (to the extent of “correcting” others) in a subject where you have misunderstood the concepts so fundamentally.
You are violent in your personal attack. I do know quite a lot about genetics and I have the credentials to support that knowledge. (I taught evolutionary subjects at a major US university)
I have different ideas than you but I would not attack you so violently.
