Posted on 12/04/2002 2:32:36 PM PST by Junior
Scientists are comparing the genetic sequence of the mouse with the previously completed genetic blueprint of human beings. Here's what they have learned so far:
_ Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes. They share 99 percent of them, including those that could make a tail.
_ More than 90 percent of genes associated with disease are identical in humans and mice, underscoring the value of the latter in laboratory experiments.
_ The mouse's full genetic blueprint contains about 2.5 billion DNA letters, 14 percent fewer than a human's.
_ Comparing the mouse and human genomes has led to the discovery of about 1,200 human genes and 9,000 mouse genes.
_ Mice have more genes that control the sense of smell, reproduction and immunity than humans do.
RW666P
Several possibilities:
1. Claim that the scientists are liars.
2. Claim that you are a slimer.
3. Behave provocatively, and when someone takes the bait, hit the abuse button to get the thread deleted.
4. Claim that all science disproves the alleged results.
5. Post a huge fog of blue babble, then claim that your failure to refute proves his position.
6. Search the papers for words like "the data may suggest" or "one might conclude" and claim that they don't know anything.
Oh, that's an easy one: "God works in mysterious ways".
You see, when genetics turns up something that looks designed, it's "proof" of intelligent design.
When genetics turns up something that looks like crappy design or evolved/inherited traits, it's "proof" that we're just not smart enough to understand God's design.
In other words, heads they win, tails we're just not smart enough to realize it's really heads again. No pun intended.
Of course, this begs the question of how we can be sure we're smart enough to correctly recognize the alleged "good" design if we're not smart enough to grasp the apparent "bad" design.
Wisdom teeth are another example of a human feature that makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint (i.e., we evolved from ancestors who had larger, more apelike jaws, and now that our jaws have shrunk, we're still in the process of weeding out what have become "too many" teeth), but look really stupid from an "intelligent design" standpoint. It's not too smart to "design" us with teeth that most often become impacted and cause major problems. And no, they aren't "spare" teeth to replace those lost prior to modern dental care, since a large number never emerge at all, even when other teeth are lost.
While he's at it, he can take a stab at explaining why birds have genes for teeth.
When the proper chemical triggers are applied to embryonic chickens, it activates the currently dormant genes and they grow little rows of genuine teeth.
What's even more interesting is that the teeth have features most resembling that of reptiles, the birds' presumed evolutionary ancestor.
Again, this makes perfect sense if birds got here via evolution, and makes no bloody sense if God was personally designing "chicken code". Why insert something that was specifically going to be turned off and unused?
Am I now related to Ben or is Cheeta still my cousin?
And while were not talking about it. Is is Global Warming or Cooling that's causing the high temp around here to stay in the low 30's?
Yes.
If consistency means anything, rather poorly.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky
Loaded question. People have genes for vertebral segments. The number of segments past a certain caudal point determines a tail. There are no separate tail genes.
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.