Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> I’m transferring this discussion, as I hadn’t expected it to continue.
> 
> QUOTE:"[i]These conditions—the accumulation of "junk" DNA, the presence of retrotransposons and their interactions with NHEJ—make the genome more complex. This is one feature that may distinguish advanced organisms, like humans, from simpler ones, like bacteria.[/i]”
> 
> DAVID’s comment: [i]Once again junk DNA is necessary. This could well explain how advances in evolution were coded into DNA, by simply rearranging DNA, with no need for enlargement. Perhaps this is what ID scientists view as devolution.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]If the genome becomes more complex, how does that equate with subtraction and devolution?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]The gene is changed to an earlier form in the code.[/i]
> 
> Oh gosh, so the human genome existed in or even before the bacterial genome.
> 
> Under “[b]Plant bloom[/b]”:
> 
> QUOTE: "[i]Earlier this year, as reported in Cosmos, a US-led team suggested [b]the answer lies in the ability of these plants to downsize their genomes[/b], giving them the infrastructure and energy to spread rapidly.[/i] (David's bold)
> 
> DAVID’s comment: [i]Note my bold: downsizing DNA is devolution of DNA to advance plants. This research was noted in the previous entry here describing the genome shrinking in order to advance the flowering form.[/i]
> 
> Assuming common descent, I don’t see any problem in species discarding whatever parts of the inherited genome are not suitable or needed for their survival and/or improved chances of survival (= my idea of “junk”). (Yes, yes, I agree with Darwin and many others that survival is one key element in the advance of evolution.) And I still don’t buy the argument that a more complex genome (e.g. human compared to bacteria) entails subtraction and devolution.