<<
Susan: I think he wants you to respond to the very last sentence in his
post. >>
ON THE CONTRARY!
I found it interestin that she ONLY responded to the last sentence of my post
- while ignoring the rest!
any of this would be nice:
<< Bertvan:
>> That such facts support common ancestry is certainly true. It might
also
>>support other scenarios, such as horizontal transfer, symbiosis. or the
>>possibility that similar DNA results in similar morphology, and the
genome
>>itself has some unexplained ability to organize itself in similar,
>>meaningful, purposeful, designs and patterns. >>
Huxter
>WHY would similar morphology affect the aptterns of synapomorphic
>mutations
in areas of the genome that have NOTHING to do with morphology? >e.g., the
beta globin gene cluster; intergenic regions; introns' etc...
Bertvan:
Good question, and the best argument for common ancestry of which I am
aware.
Similarity in "junk" DNA is consistent with symbiosis and horizontal
transfer
as a source of novel mutations.
Huxter:
Horizontal transfer between, say, bonobos, chimps, and humans? In what way
does symbiosis enter into this?
Bert:
Darwinists have called this part of the genome "junk" and claimed it
served
no purpose. Denton disagrees.
Huxter:
It seems then that Denton is behind the times. 'Junk' DNA is used more as a
catch-all term for non-protein coding DNA. It is known - and has been for a
long time - that 'junk' DNA does (in some cases) have 'a' function. It is
also known that these functions are not nearly as dependant upon
conservation
of sequence as is the coding of protein for instance. Some have attempted
to
'up-play' the role of 'junk' DNA, claiming what you essentailly have (via
Denton), that there is function there, and therefore the sequence patterns
we
see are due to this. Some of those functions are spindle fiber formation,
chromosome structure, etc. According to 'Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd
Ed.', spindle fibers bind to kinetochores, which assemble at centromeres,
which have a specific sequence. The one mentioned is only 117 bases long. As
for chromosome structure and such, some intergenic DNA may very well have
'A'
function, but since it can accumulate so much obvious change, it stands to
reason that 1)these functions, if altered by sequence
change, are not necessary and/or 2)the function these regions have are not
affected by mutation. Also according to 'MBotC', replication origins in
eukaryotes occur every 30,000 to 300,000 nucleotides. It also mentions that
polymerases attach to the 'outside' of the double helix, or the
sugar-phosphate backbone, not necessarily a specific nucleotide sequence.
Moreover, many of the functional sequences in 'junk' DNA have a large degree
of degeneracy, so specific sequences are not necessarily required anyway.
Bert:
Since nothing else in living organisms has turned out to be "junk", I'm
inclined to
agree with Denton. Perhaps we will be able to answer lots of questions
when
we discover what function this "junk" performs.
Huxter:
Perhaps. Perhaps Denton should be a bit more well read rather than relying
on his anti-Darwinian feelings.
Huxter:
> And on >what do you base the claim that "...the genome
>itself has some unexplained ability to organize itself in similar,
>meaningful, purposeful, designs and patterns."
>Does it? How do you know this?
Bertvan:
Mere speculations-and not even my speculations. I agree with Steve that
"chance" is a term we use to cover phenomenon for which we do not know the
cause. Darwinists seem to have been content to sit on "chance" and look no
further.
Huxter:
They have been? Hmmm... I thought selection also plays a role...
Bert:
I am merely a fascinated observer of those scientists such as Kauffman,
Denton, Margulis, Spetner, Shapiro and the panspermia people who are
interested in looking beyond "chance". I'm sure there are others out there
that I haven't heard of.
bertvan
>>
huxter:
And I am interested that most of those folks you mention have an
'anti-Darwinian' axe to grind.