[the invisib1e hand]

I thought we just covered this.

[libh8er]

Evolution in its earliest days was derided by some for what they believed was a lack of observable evidence

..and most of us deride it to this day too.

[Coyoteman]

From the article:

Skepticism aside, evolution is steadily being verified and analyzed thanks to cutting edge computing

One of my favorite examples is an online lecture:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell.

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP

[fortheDeclaration]

These similarities indicate that archaea are a closer "relative" to us on the evolutionary tree than bacteria.

I feel alot better now knowing that mankind didn't evolve from bacteria!

[fortheDeclaration]

Graduate student Elijah Roberts led the study and wrote computer programs that combed through thousands of organism's ribosomal sequences.

Ofcourse, the computer progrems were random and unplanned, like evolution itself.

[grey_whiskers]

Molecular-level cladistics are bound to be an improvement on naked-eye, gross macroscopic feature based cladistics.

But I'll bet they still may end up having significant inaccuracies, depending on the *expression* of certain genes in the particular organism.

If organism A and organism B both have a certain gene G coding for protein P, but organism A also has another protein Q, while organism B has a different protein R, then they may or may not be closely related depending on G's interaction with P differs from Q's interaction with R.

This problem to get more pronounced as the organisms get more complex.

Merely cataloging differences in the lists is prob'ly not sufficient, though it is a good start.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

*PING* for this with possible application to my post 20 this thread.

Note that the same gene is an "on" switch in one sex and "off" in the other...

Cheers!