Nigel, I would love to discuss DNA sequences with you. Honestly, I would
like to really understand why people say that Darwinian Evolution is true.
For example, I would like to know which "basic tenet" of Darwinian Evolution
you're referring to.
But, before we begin, I need a promise that no matter how heated our
disagreement becomes, that no insults be thrown. If you are capable of
doing that, I would love to discuss this with you.
Are you a Microbiologist? If so, I am looking forward to asking a bunch of
questions.
What is your field of training if you don't mind me asking. As for me, I
have degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Recently, I've
dabbled in Agriculture and Animal Science.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Dyer" <l...@thedyers.org.uk>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each
day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA
sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to
homo sapiens.
This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one
through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as
'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to
discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during
that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there
are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that
Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian
Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and
relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete
picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution.
Nigel
On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Axil, I think you mentioned this before.
The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is
it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.
For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It
is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't
know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.
People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume
that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory
springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We
can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits
in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is
proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning.
The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called "Junk
DNA" are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.
During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken
changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.
Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people
always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes,
that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes,
evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo
