kholmar
07-10-2001, 07:45 AM
<title>Kimberly- William Colston kholmar bill2@earthling.net</title>
I read an article in Scientific American not too long ago, didnt understand most of it, those articles are written for experts in their fields.<br>
<br>
anyway, the gist of it is that for many many years, random mutation style evolution of species rested on the assumption that male and females alleles (half the genetic code) were identical and interchangeable.<br>
<br>
apparently they are not. according to this particular study, male-male and female-female allele pairing would not produce viable offspring.<br>
<br>
according to the article, this meant (for reasons that i didnt follow) that a random mution had to occur on the identical code string in both the male and female allele for a random mution to work at all.<br>
<br>
(obviously im leaving out detail that i didnt understand well enough to remember here because this doesnt explain the whole picture)<br>
<br>
the summary point of the article seemed to be that if they understood the results of their study, the entire concept of random mutation evolution was in question.<br>
<br>
the study didnt get a lot of attention outside the long hair circle. wonder why...<br>
<br>
billiam<br>
I read an article in Scientific American not too long ago, didnt understand most of it, those articles are written for experts in their fields.<br>
<br>
anyway, the gist of it is that for many many years, random mutation style evolution of species rested on the assumption that male and females alleles (half the genetic code) were identical and interchangeable.<br>
<br>
apparently they are not. according to this particular study, male-male and female-female allele pairing would not produce viable offspring.<br>
<br>
according to the article, this meant (for reasons that i didnt follow) that a random mution had to occur on the identical code string in both the male and female allele for a random mution to work at all.<br>
<br>
(obviously im leaving out detail that i didnt understand well enough to remember here because this doesnt explain the whole picture)<br>
<br>
the summary point of the article seemed to be that if they understood the results of their study, the entire concept of random mutation evolution was in question.<br>
<br>
the study didnt get a lot of attention outside the long hair circle. wonder why...<br>
<br>
billiam<br>