Reply #30: The reason your assertion seems nonsensical to me ... [View All]

[struggle4progress]

... is that your "our genes are expressing the allowable limits of human variation" does not seem to be based on any mechanism: rather, it seems to be some sort of philosophical gloss, which allows you to transition to further irrelevant philosophical discussion of "creation" and your spirituality.

Whether my model is too simple, or not, may depend, I think, on the use to which it is put. I have simply been trying to explain exactly why I consider the claim under discussion (that fish had genetic damage but no mutations) to be empty blather.

As an alternative to the Watson-Crick model, and associated triplet codon scheme, supported by a half century of molecular genetics research, you apparently propose that "genes are very much like clouds."

Of course, if this gene-model of yours is a productive source of testable technical ideas, I would be naturally interested to learn more about it. And, more relevant to the current subthread, I would be delighted to hear you explain exactly how this alleged "cloud-like"-ness of genes helps us to understand ability of radiation to cause mutation (as studied, for example, by Muller and his coworkers long ago) and genetic-damage: after this, it would be nice to learn how you believe the insights you derive from this support the Cham Dallas assertion that I have repeatedly ridiculed supra.