Quote Originally Posted by Bugbear View Post
Yes, it is very true that a fish is not a mammal. I am really not arguing with the traditional view point being expressed. If we are going to put this in evolutionary terms, let us, please, express things properly.

It is the genome associated with fish that evolved into the genome of mammals. The Phenotypic expression of those genes are, more or less, the vehicles of the genes.
Genes jump species all the time via bacteria etc, sometimes different species do combine into a new species (genomic shock) and so on. We splice fish genes into the genome of tomatoes, and spider silk genes into goat genomes. If the jumping gene finds a comfortable home in it's new genome,to anthropomorphize it a bit, it can become a mutation that is passed on. And of course if the gene causes problems that prevent the genome from being passed on, that is the negative side of natural selection.

I want to make it clear, again, that I am not trying to argue fashion is tradition, or against the traditionalists. The concept of the kilt has basic elements that we keep in our minds and extra-somatic memory, such as Barb's kilt book. These are like the genome of the kilt that gets passed from generation to generation, or person to person. An element of fashion can make it's way into this kilt genome and begin to be passed on. If it sticks, I would assume it is a tradition, like the adoption of knife rather than box pleats. We play the role of natural selection in this case, though it is fairly deliberate and willful.

I have experienced, first hand, that the traditionalists of this forum do not agree on some details of what is and is not traditional, as well as, what are and are not acceptable elements of traditional Highland attire. To me the true battle of the traditional kilt genome is playing out in the heads of the traditionalists, and much less the heads of the modernists.

That was a good post. I agree with most of it. Let me say before continuing, however, that I am not a scientist or biologist...I don't have your obvious expertise, in other words.

But, that said, I seriously doubt that putting a fish gene in a tomato creates a salmon. Or a scaled Early Girl. By any stretch of the imagination. And if it does, it becomes something else simply by virtue of not being able to breed with the original. Not being able to pass the original set of genes on to the next generation.

And yes, the true battle of the Traditional kilt genome is in the heads of the Traditionalists--I suspect they are the only ones who respect the Traditions enough to care.

Anytime a person has to redefine the parameters of issue...ie. "(re)-define Traditional"...you have to know that the basic assumptions and understandings and conventions and history and such, are not regarded with the same respect as they may be entitled to.

(Re)-defining is the same as dissing every one else's ideas ...back to their inception...and imposing something else.