Posted on 06/04/2004 8:08:18 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
You can't go there. That is heresy for anything Darwinian.
No it isn't. You ignored my point.
Yeah, but human genes are more complicated than mouse genes
and human behavior more complicated than rodent behavior.
Loss of this genetic material may have no material effect ni rodents simplly because they are incapable of writing a symphoney, building a car, wiring an electical connection., etc. They basically eat, fornicate, give birth, nurse young, defecate and sleep.
No, I guess I don't understand your point. Selection is a necessary part of Darwinian evolution. It is the "information" ready to be recorded in the organism that receives the information.
I don't accept it at all. He says it is different, sure, but the description you provided is essentially the same as evolution in its particulars.
Nope, at least not what is continually argued here. This is what Dr. Shapiro, in part, had to say concerning Darwinians.
A Third Way.(Also previously referenced.)
What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization? Borrowing concepts from information science, new schools of evolutionists can begin to rephrase virtually intractable global questions in terms amenable to computer modelling and experimentation. We can speculate what some of these more manageable questions might be: How can molecular control circuits be combined to direct the expression of novel traits? Do genomes display characteristic system architectures that allow us to predict phenotypic consequences when we rearrange DNA sequence components? Do signal transduction networks contribute functional information as they regulate the action of natural genetic engineering hardware?
Questions like those above will certainly prove to be naive because we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of evolution from a radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
That is why we can take it for granted that the opening article of this thread was written by a creation scientist. An orthodox scientist would not have had the curiosity or the courage to ask questions that can't yet be answered.
One of the chunks was 1.6 million DNA bases long, the other one was over 800,000 bases long. The researchers expected the mice to exhibit various problems as a result of the deletions.That is a surprising result! Now what they should do is, raise these knockout mice on a farm. See if they're just as good at surviving in the wild - facing periodic bouts of disease, cats & starvation. After all, their ancestors faced these challenges successfully. But the knockout mice haven't had to worry about those things in the lab.Yet the mice were virtually indistinguishable from normal mice in every characteristic they measured, including growth, metabolic functions, lifespan and overall development. "We were quite amazed," says Rubin, who presented the findings at a recent meeting of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York.
He thinks it is pretty clear that these sequences have no major role in growth and development. "There has been a circular argument that if it's conserved it has activity."
I thought that the fugu did that, since its genome is only about 10% the size of ours.
Although the Fugu genome contains essentially the same genes and regulatory sequences as the human genome, it carries those genes and regulatory sequences in approximately 365 million bases as compared to the 3 billion bases that make up human DNA. With far less so-called “junk DNA” to sort through....
For these particular scientists described in this article, yes absolutely. It is heartening to understand that they had recognized something quite profound. But his "accusation" was aimed at those mentioned at the beginning of his article, Dennett and Dawkins.
Actually, I think he did.
Nope. Read the article. It does not claim redundancy.
I 'll swear I saw the word redundancy is in the article.
There might be a third explanation: similar regions on other chromosomes could make up for the deletions. "It could be that these elements are so critical that there is redundancy in the system," says Kelly Frazer of Perlegen Sciences in California.
scratch the extraneous "is"
Is it your assertion that "could be" means "claim"?
No. It is my "assertion" that due to the possibility of redundancy that the statement "So here we have proof that huge chunks of DNA are completely unnecessary." is false.
Thanks for the ping!
Exhibitionist! :-)
Physicist wrote:
He [Shapiro] says it is different, sure, but the description you provided is essentially the same as evolution in its particulars
______________________________________
Nope, at least not what is continually argued here. This is what Dr. Shapiro, in part, had to say concerning Darwinians.
-AndrewC
______________________________________
But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry.
Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth,
--- which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
-Shapiro-
_____________________________________
--- Hmmmm, seems to me that Shapiro's concluding line, just above, is flawed by the reactions of the scientists as described in the article.
Can you agree, AndrewC?
88 tpaine
_____________________________________
For these particular scientists described in this article, yes absolutely.
It is heartening to understand that they had recognized something quite profound.
But his "accusation" was aimed at those mentioned at the beginning of his article, Dennett and Dawkins.
91 andyC
_____________________________________
No, it was aimed at Darwinian scientists, as both you & he clearly wrote, just above.
Do you really think you can fool all people all the time, andy?
Why do you find it hard to admit even obvious, but petty errors of logic, like those above? - Could it be that your dogmatic positions lead you to overzealously shade the truth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.