Post reply

Reply to the message by Balance_Maintained

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:

> > > >David: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as  gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.
> > > 
> > > Tony: If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome. The non-protein coding section of the genome, which was largely ignored and is now becoming understood as important, probably contains as much behavioral modification data as anything. 
> > > 
> > > Phenotype comparisons only became useless because they were trying to prove an invalid hypothesis to begin with. When the genetic data didn't support their conclusions, they through the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, though they still plop the muddy little bugger down as evidence when it suits them, regardless of genetics.
> > 
> >David: In the early days, phenotype was all they  had. A genetic bush of life  will not match the phenotype bush. The finding  that at least 80% of DNA is functional is driving them nuts and sure looks designed.
> 
> Indeed. But the proverbial nail in the Darwinian coffin will be shared information that can not possibly come through direct genetic inheritance. And this means both the genetic instructions for phenotypical similarities and the instructions for non-phenotypical behaviors.