taub at hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Frank Yue) writes:
> Do you think so? Maybe. Does that mean that the definition and concept of
> evolution will change when we discover a non-genetic living system? :-) I
> know none exists that we know of, but we *will* find one.
robison at ribo.harvard.edu (Keith Robison) replies:
> A non-genetic living system? If we define genetics as the inheritance
> of information from progenitors which can be transmitted to offspring, then
> how could you have anything that fits anyone's idea of living without having
> it engage in genetics? Or that it could evolve by any mechanism?
If you define genetics thus broadly it's certainly hard to imagine a
non-genetic life form. But in real life one specific genetic mechanism
(DNA -> RNA -> protein) is so central to modern molecular genetics that it
has come to be *identified* with molecular genetics, and is in fact widely
referred to as the Central Dogma. I'm sure Frank Yue is merely asking what
will happen to our concept of evolution when/if we find a living system (not,
presumably, on Earth) that does pass information to offspring but doesn't
conform to the Central Dogma.
crom2 Athens GA Public Access Unix | i486 AT, 16mb RAM, 600mb online
Molecular Biology | AT&T Unix System V release 3.2
Population Biology | Tbit PEP 19200bps V.32 V.42/V.42bis
Ecological Modeling | admin: James P. H. Fuller
Bionet/Usenet/cnews/nn | {jim,root}@crom2.rn.com
