I won’t be able to really mix it up for a couple more weeks, but I couldn’t pass this one up!
All the best—GGG
That was pretty funny, but even he came around to realize evolution is true.
Humor.
??? Call me dumb, but it seems that active genetic material would mutate more rapidly as non-functioning genes as those are dealing with active traits that would show environmental changes, generation after generation..
Let me critique this before the hardcore neo-Darwinists hit the thread:
This does not falsify evolution. It appears to falsify the assumption (shared by both many neo-Darwinists and their most hardened critics) that the now-technical meaning of ‘random’ in ‘random mutation’ is equivalent to the common-sense notion of ‘random’.
The common-sense notion of randomness applied to mutations would have transciption errors occuring with equal likelihood at all points of the genome, due to things like cosmic ray strikes and the like.
The technical meaning given to ‘random’ by evolutionary biologists does not mean or imply this (and it was stupid of them to keep the word because using it provides their critics with a propaganda coup, but I digress) it means that mutations do not occur in anticipation of environmental conditions, and that the mutations that do occur in response to environmental conditions show no bias in favor of adaptive advantage.
Personally, I think the main cause of adaptive changes in various organisms genomes is trancription of genetic code by viruses, which move ‘already field tested’ bits around. And then there’s are reverse transcriptases, but neo-Darwinists don’t like talking about that class of enzymes.
No real comfort here for those of you who think God hand-builds molecular machines. On the other hand, for those of us who think He constructed the biosphere to be the orginal supercomputer running what are now called ‘genetic algorithms’ in unwhitting homage to His handiwork, with overarching instructions to converge on an organism in His image and likeness (too bad we managed to mar that) it’s a rather nice result.
Apparently some people have a very low threshold of entertainment.
"The true function of these regions remains a mystery, but it's clear that the genome really does need and use them," said Gill Bejerano, PhD, assistant professor of developmental biology and of computer science. In fact, these so-called "ultraconserved" regions are about 300 times less likely than other regions of the genome to be lost during mammalian evolution, according to research from Bejerano and graduate student Cory McLean.
Although some of the ultraconserved regions, which were first identified by Bejerano in 2004, are involved in the regulation of the expression of neighboring genes, previous research has shown that mice missing each of four regions seem perfectly normal.
"It's very surprising that none of the four has any observable phenotype," said Bejerano. "In some ways it just doesn't make sense."
When this discovery came out several years ago, the argument given at the time was, ... "So what?" It is abundantly evident that you can't sweep problems under the rug. What is in contention here is that there is apparently no phenotype connection to the highly conserved genotype. Darwin necessitates an intimate connection between the two.
Not what my understanding is.......
Dormant material would have a hard time mutating as it is dormant, unused......just sitting there doing nothing in particular.
So, it gets copied, passed on, and still does nothing.