Member # 262
posted 21. June 2002 13:33
In attempting to falsify the NDG and RM&NS theory of genetic change, I came upon the following rather interesting solution to the issue of genotype to phenotype and phenotype to genotype maps. Genetic theory, as you will recall, asserts that genetic change is the result of ‘mutation processes operating on genotypes’ and ‘selection processes operating on phenotypes’. Existing genetic theories, therefore, require the existence of both a genotype to phenotype map and a phenotype to genotype map. Although the maps are essential to existing theory, no one to date has been able to explain how they work.
The explanations offered for not identifying these maps include 1)difficulties in defining phenotypes and the ever popular 2)the maps are too complex to be readily identifiable. The solution to the genetic determinism problem, it is proposed here, is with definition of genotype. If, it is suggested, you refine the definition of genotype, then there appears to be fairly direct one to one genotype to phenotype and phenotype and genotype mappings. The problem or benefit (depending on your point of view) with the identified mappings is that they are not compatible with either Darwinian or NDG theory.
The NDG definition of genotype is based on the assumption that genetic material is, or can be viewed as, essentially unchanged during the lifetime of the organism. But it is well known that this is not strictly true. It is well known that, at the very least, the status of a gene in a cell can change from active to inactive and from inactive to active (different statuses involving different levels of activity are logically possible). If the active/inactive status’ of each gene is taken into account, then an organism with N genes has 2^N potential genotypes.
Each cell has its own distinct set of active and inactive genes, and the status of each gene in a cell can change multiple times during the cells life time. If C is the average number of cells in an organisms, and D is the average number of status changes per cell, then the number of genotypes associated with an organism is C*D.
If as suggested by the MAP model (introduced previously) each gene is a set of assembly instructions or ‘change of state operations’ then each ‘state, condition or period’ between a change in status or between a change in state event would be a phenotype. There would therefore be roughly C*D states or phenotypes corresponding to the C*D genotypes or change of state events. There would therefore be a roughly one to one correspondence or mapping between genotypes and phenotypes.
It would appear on this surface that these genotype/phenotype and phenotype/genotype maps are reasonably consistent with current knowledge of genetics. Note that the actual mapping based on the above general principles could be more complex or less complex. Some genes, for example, could have more than two statuses. Some groups of genes, as suggested by recent research, may operate as a single unit. Whatever the final result, it will be noted that the general approach to genotype/phenotype mapping as described here is fully testable.
The proposed description of genetic determinism suggests that DNA is an active rather than passive mechanism. DNA is not simply passed from generation to generation, but actively and continuously changed or reprogrammed during the lifetime of an organism. A theory of model of genetic change, this mapping suggests, must explain not only the processes that change the ‘raw genetic code’, but also the processes which continuously change or reprogram DNA.
The solution offered here to the problem of genetic mapping suggests that both life forms and the processes that change life forms, are far, far more complex than could ever be explained by either Darwinian or neo-Darwinian models. This finding does not necessarily suggest that it is impossible to find scientific explanations for life forms and changes in life forms. The finding simply suggests we need to be looking for explanations a long way from existing Darwinian and neo-Darwinian models.