To: Stultis
That's how unfalsifiability works. If the genes are the same, they are 'highly conserved'. If they are not the same, they aren't 'highly conserved'.
It means nothing at all.
To: GourmetDan
That's how unfalsifiability works. If the genes are the same, they are 'highly conserved'. If they are not the same, they aren't 'highly conserved'.
If genes are the same across wildly different species, such as a species of fish and a species of mammal, but not present in other species more closely related, such as a different species of mammal and fish, then there is a problem with the current established lineages of common descent. That would be falsifiability. Thus far, however, no such observation has occured.
759 posted on
07/05/2006 7:55:47 AM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: GourmetDan
That's how unfalsifiability works. If the genes are the same, they are 'highly conserved'. If they are not the same, they aren't 'highly conserved'. Ooops! Reading comprehension again. They aren't "the same". They're just less different than the typical genes are (between species with that degree of evolutionary relationship).
766 posted on
07/05/2006 8:23:03 AM PDT by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson