I often cite references to support my scientific facts. You are the
one who almost always relies on an "unknown source" and will not
reveal your sources even when asked.

You are the one who has gone off on many tangents in this thread, e.g.
talking about human genetics and human body weight that have nothing
to do with botany. I am just responding to topics that you have
brought up such as your homozygous versus heterozygous disease
susceptibility hypothesis.

I have pointed out many of your errors, e.g.

1. Your incorrect generalization that a homozygous crop will be more
disease susceptible than a heterozygous crop.

2. Your harsh criticism of the definition of evolution I quoted, i.e.
"...evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency
of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." You
are apparently unable to substantiate the criticisms or provide a more
accurate definition.

3. Your rejecting the concept that mutation plays an essential role in
evolution by stating "it is pretty clear that mutations as such are
not really the factor they were made out to be" but then countering
that "The present understanding of gene change can be briefly stated
as 'Cut, Copy, Paste.'" The "Cut, Copy, Paste" mechanism that results
in gene change is considered mutation:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...ansposons.html

Biology textbooks and websites agree that mutation plays an important
role in evolution. For example, a Tulane University evolution class
website notes that "the major role of mutation in evolution is the
introduction of new gene variants into a population":
http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/Courses/...ng_sp2000.html

4. Your contention that "extra genes/alleles have additional effects"
contradicts your favorite plant example that Coffea arabica with 44
chromosomes is more disease susceptible than C. canephora with just
22, yet you will not even address the discrepancy when asked.

I took college courses in biology, botany, plant breeding and genetics
and have read a lot on evolution, including college biology and botany
textbooks, science teaching journals like American Biology Teacher,
noncreationist evolution websites, and the U.S. National Academy of
Science's book, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science
(1998) which can be read online for free:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/index.html

The 1994 college biology text by John Kimball is available online for
free and I find it a good introductory source for evolution and
biology information:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/

Many other college botany and biology textbooks have websites that
provide some free information, e.g.
Biology of Plants by Raven, Evert and Eichorn:
http://www.whfreeman.com/raven/index.htm

What have been your sources of information on evolution and plant
biology?

Any reasonable person can see that your personal attacks on me
indicate that you have no scientific facts or arguments to back your
claims. If science was on your side, it would be very easy for you to
support your case with facts from books or websites.

David R. Hershey



"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ...
Dear David,

I note you feel you are occupied "just pointing out [my] errors".
Although I would readily admit any errors I might have made it would seem I
cannot see you actually pointing out any. If I have to describe what it is
you are doing it would seem you fasten upon I word I use, you connect this
with a
random word you derive from an unknown source and off you go ...

Since you were kind enough to provide such a clear example I will use that
to set the record straight. I stated:
"It is like expressing human progress over the last millenia by measuring
individual body weight: this may be be useful data but presents only a small
part of the picture".
If one were to conduct a poll as to what constitutes "human progress over
the last millenia" one might get quite different answers, such as the
invention of the wheel, the agricultural revolution, the invention of the
printing press, the industrial revolution, instant coffee, automobiles,
computers, cell-phones, nintendo, etc but genetic change would not be high
on the list, perhaps not even in the top thousand.
Yet you blithely state "Measuring a change in allele frequency is not at all
like "measuring individual body weight" as you suggest. Human body weight is
largely a function of environment, not genetics."

Although I am sure you will take this the wrong way, I feel honor bound to
advise you, with all due respect, to confer with your doctor about your
medication.

As to gene expression it is clear you are hampered by some severe
misconceptions. The safe advice would be for you to refrain from commenting
on this topic. This is the more so since it would not be enough for you to
read a book on the topic. As I am sure you are aware re-education is much
harder than education. You would need to take a course on the topic to
straighten matters out, and this might come hard. You had better avoid it.
Sorry to be so blunt.

sincerely,
PvR