"I 'm not sure what you mean by either genetic determinism or neo-darwinism , but there is no contradiction between multi-purpose genes and evolution by natural selection , or the principle that genotypic alterations have a phenotypic expression . Just because a gene may have more than one function , or multiple genes make contribute to a single characteristic , does n't make any substantive difference to the theory of evolution , which you should recall was inititally developed before there was any understanding of genetics at all ."
"* * Hi jo ; Going by your various posts that I 've read , I think that you are probably a person that I could like and whose opinions I could respect . But quite frankly , on the issue of darwinism and the way darwinists play sly games with the English language , corrupting trhe language to suit their ideology , you seem to have been very much duped by their semantic dishonesty . '' Genetic determinism `` and `` neo-darwinism `` are terms that , as a result of constant and perpetual darwinist equivocation are among those that no longer have one , single , and definite meaning among those that employ them . That is , you can never be sure what they mean when darwinists employ them . What do they mean when you use them ? IAC , if 'genetic determinism ' depends upon the linear chemical process of one gene maps to one protein [ it is now known that this is not the case ] , then a 'theory ' of evolution dependent upon phenotypic mutations determined by genotypic mutations is plausible , [ not necessarily true , but plausible ] , even when the genotypic mutations are accidental/undirected/random . But such a `` theory `` , [ that is , a hypothesis whereby the origin/evolution of biological novelty and increased sytematic complexity and productivity is held to be directly and linearly and mechanically and deterministically traceable to accidental genetic alterations ] , becomes entirely implausible when you have `` multi-purpose genes `` , and whole genomes self-organising their own genetic 'pieces ' . Then phenotypic expression is not the sum , or anything like , the deterministic linear outcome of any given mutated gene , or collection of mutated genes , taken together . The entire fisherian notion of `` Random genetic mutation as the source of adaptive phenotypic traits `` goes straight down the tubes , -- just as it always should have done , from day one . But now you are back to where Darwin was , 150 years ago -- he had no explanation for the ORIGINS of species . All he had was a mechanism [ `` NS `` ] for the numerical distribution [ aka 'fitness ' ] of species . That `` theory `` can `` explain `` [ well , not really ] why some species are plentiful , while others are extinct , but it can not and does not explain how they 'evolved ' in the first place . It was because Darwin had this fact rubbed in his face by his contemporaries that he cribbed from Lamarck , and came up with a 'theory ' of origins that he called , 'pangenesis ' . And without `` RM `` , latterday darwinists are in the same position neo-darwinists were in prior to fisherism 's 'modern synthesis ' . They have no mechanism for the origin of traits [ evolution ] , but only one for the preservation and distribution of traits [ inheritance , heretibility , conservation ] . And a very nebulous 'mechanism ' that is , anyway . Now you may be among those who conveniently forget or ignore the fact that `` NS `` does not , and can not , account for evolution , i.e. , the origins of species , but some of us refuse to do that , despite much pressure from darwinists . And we have been `` recalling `` that fact on a regular basis for 150+ years ."
"is no contradiction between multi-purpose genes and evolution by natural selection"
"you seem to have been very much duped by their semantic dishonesty '' ``"