> ... But the process of
> reproduction in humans is not simply a matter of drawing a set
> of alleles, like cards from two decks, from each parent, even
> when one excludes the usual potential for point mutations to
> occur. Recombination does not respect reading-frame
> boundaries. This means that information *different* from that
> seen in the parent providing the gamete is possible. Whether
> that information change also marks a *novelty* is another
> matter, but one which is a possible outcome.
Are you referring to the phenotype? [In which case, I agree]. Or are
you referring to the genotype? [In which case, I do not "see" an
information change].
When you use the words "possible outcome", are you making a deductive
statement, or can this be justified by empirical evidence?
I am not just quibbling over words. The vast majority [if not all]
of the variation in living things noted by Darwin related to
phenotypic expression rather than genotypic changes. Those who
extrapolate plant and animal variations due to artificial breeding
and argue for "macroevolutionary" change are making the same
category mistake.
> Theretically, in the presence of sufficient base-pair
> diversity, a series of recombination events can produce the
> same result as a series of point mutations, or a single point
> mutation.
Theoretically, I will concede this point. But I will suggest that it
is not particularly helpful, as it does not convey the reality of
what is going on with either recombination or mutation.
> There is no theoretical basis upon which to divide
> recombination and point mutation as possible information
> sources.
I suspect this conclusion is highly controversial amongst
evolutionary biologists. The only way I can agree with it is to
add that neither recombination nor mutation are possible information
sources and so the two processes cannot be divided on this account.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.