Nigel, it appears that you have valuable incite into changes in DNA which may lead to mutated animals. Have you ever seen evidence that a section of DNA from a non gene region of a chromosome has found a path into one of the genes? I understand that all regions of the genetic materials have the same cross link structure but that the portions that we consider genes also contain beginning regions to start the copying and then special portions that act as stops. Would it not be possible for some of this junk DNA to be inserted inside along with the normal material to make a new protein?
I am assuming that there is no special coding which tells the copying mechanism how long the protein should be so that extra insertions would be automatically copy ending. Is this what you observe? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Dyer <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 6:00 am 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 > > >
