Replies

Because I do promote some of my views. Its just that I don't allow others to tell me what they are and how to defend them. You seem to have a great blindness to your arrogating approach to discourse. You do have a clue to my view on these matters(or at least you should). I don't think the evidence shows that the human genome is 95% junk. I posted some evidence in post 1400.

Now we are getting somewhere. I never said, nor did I intend to imply that 95% of the genome is junk. Read through my posts and I think that should be clear. I apologize if I was not. I did write several posts back that studying these transposable elements and repeats is a semi-hot topic in the field now.

What I am refering to as "junk" are the numerous pseudogenes which pepper the human genome. Many of these guys are not even expressed, let alone have any function. These genetic mistakes, errors etc ( NOT 95% of the genome) are strong evidence for evolution in my opinion.

And also, I shouldnt have to guess from your posts for a "clue" as to what your position is. Is it so difficult to express your point of view in a straight foward manner?

And also, I shouldnt have to guess from your posts for a "clue" as to what your position is.

The reason for that, I suppose, is that you were looking in the wrong place. I first pointed out that you were certain and were not allowing someone else the same luxury. You then expected me to produce something I did not wish to produce because that was not my point. My points are made specific to my posts. I do not have to offer my position on the ability of the U.S. soccer team unless I bring up the subject.

I have no clue as to the relationship of pseudogenes to the total genome. Nor do I have a clue as to the adequate or relevant measure of that relationship. I suppose the quickest and easiest number to express a relationship would be some sort of base pair ratio. However, that could be practically meaningless. Does the weight of a book relate to its usefulness? Depends on the circumstances. Another measure could be the ratio to the coding regions only, etc. You may have a measure you like, but "peppered with", though colorful, is not very "scientifically" useful(remember we are not doing science here). Finally, I can only base my judgements and views on the information presented. So if you have a number for the pseudogene relationship, please let me know. Also, I do question and wonder about things. If the human body is composed of trillions of cells, most of which are fooling around with the DNA and quite often and if these big mistakes occur. Why is it that the DNA from different cells remains so close. Or am I wrong in that conclusion.