Posted on 01/08/2008 7:28:22 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[[Macroevolution is clearly defined as species-level change. Check it out! ]]
Nope sorry- it isn’t- you of course need it to be- but simple genetic change falls far short of the criteria for true MACROEvolution. Change from a species KIND to antoehr KIND is absolutely absent in the fossil record- much to the chagrin of those hwo claim any change is MACROEvolution. KINDS remain KINDS as testified by the fossil records
[[To write for them you must agree to their Statement of Faith.]]
Faithful design denialist to hte end- please tell us Coyoteman how your statement refutes ANY of the information provided on the site? It doesn’t- it’s nothign but a petty regurgitation of a NON issue. Regurgitatiing NON issues does nothign to advance your cause Coyoteman- it only shows an unwillingness (perhaps innability) to address the FACTS stated on the site
Get back to me when you can provide some actual scientific evidence linking dissimiliar species instead of just irrelevent personal opinions about a site (I don’t expect I’ll be hearing back from you any time soon then)
Again, I’m going to have to ask you whether you are asking for a 500 million year videotape. You are pseudo-quoting Stephen Gould on the sudden appearance of new species.
Gould’s evaluation of people who misuse his writings is that they are either dishonest or stupid.
Very well said. Although I have noticed that at least some Darwinists are starting to acknowledge the idea of devolution (ie gene loss leading to change over time). Of course, they will never abandon the fairy tale of simple to complex evolution, but now they are starting to acknowledge “evolution” works in both directions.
He was saying this, and I wasn't disputing it...am I missing something?
Still, even though the histones find their origins in the wider genome...they become coding agents, conveying information from one portion of the genome, to another. Hence the code-within-code type of thinking that arrangement gives rise to. That's all I was trying to say...
I pinged you to this discussion, since he mentioned you in his last post to me. So now, I address this to him also.
Fourtran? Ok, ok, it's Fortran, but I just couldn't resist!
Hi Blue Dragon, I hope you don't think I was being combative with you, I was just trying to point out why I think the science is against Allmendream's notions about the "universal code." Those scientists who are postulating a "histone code" are saying that the evidence seems to suggest a seperate code that works with what Allmendream calls the universal code (the universal code being the genetic code). What these scientists are saying is that the histone code works with the genetic code, but it is not the same as the genetic code, in much the same way as Windows works with binary code, and yet is separate and distinct from the same.
Many scientists are even taking it a step further and postulating that the histone code is but a part of a much larger code (or codes) which they call the "epigentic code." They view this code as being "above" the genetic code because it plays a crucial role in cell differentiation, allowing for cells to take on very different physical characterists without altering what Allmendream calls the universal/genetic code in the slightest. According to these scientists, this evidence points to an epigenetic code, or a code that operates above the genetic code, that allows cells with the exact same genetic code to morph into all sorts tissues, organs, and even our overall anatomy. Allmendream would have us believe that this all reduces down to the genetic code. I think the evidence for such a notion is becoming rapidly outdated by the field of epigenetics. Indeed, the genetic code, which, if I understand allmendream's position correctly, is what he calls the universal code, may in reality be the simplest and most basic code of all. In fact, it is starting to look like the genetic code simply makes proteins in a way that is analogous to humans making bricks, whereas the epigenetic code fashions those proteins into all those cells, tissues and organs that must come together to form living organisms. Do you see how radically different epigenetics is from Allmendream's mechanistic/reductionist ideas about the genetic code being the universal code of life? Indeed, as one epigeneticist once put it, "The genetic code is the piano, the epigenetic code the tune."
PS I hope you don't mind, I am pinging yet more people to the discussion because I find this topic fascinating--GGG
LOL
My fiancee unit is coming home soon - shes in her last semester of her biochem degree (from a private Christian school even though we’re not Christians), is graduating summa cum laude in a fe months, and has verbal offers from 2 ivy league schools for her PHd. Her specific area of interest is molecular genetics, so if she isn’t loaded down with calculus homework, I’ll check in with her and see what she thinks. I’m sure she’s been following this.
You're dating yourself ;o)
Nope, I didn't think that at all, though for a moment it seemed as if you might have been steering me towards things I couldn't honestly agree with.
However, the balance of what you say in this last post gets us back on the right track.
OK. What part of this is not done by the Universal genetic code?
There are genes for histones. These are transcribed by RNA polymerase and translated into histone proteins at the ribosome according the the Universal Genetic Code; then the histone can go bind DNA and do its job.
There are genes for DNA methylase. These are transcribed into mRNA then translated into proteins (according to the Universal Genetic Code)these proteins can then bind to DNA and methylate it; increasing the affinity of the DNA for binding histones.
Histones can be Acetylated making them more or less able to bind DNA. These Histone Acetyl Transferases (HAT’s) and Histone De-Acetyl Transferases (HDAC’s) are proteins coded for by the genetic code that then interact with histones and modulate its ability to interact with DNA.
RNA polymerase can be phosphorylated by proteins coded for by the universal genetic code, this in turn effects which promoter regions of which genes it will preferentially interact with.
ARE YOU BEGINNING TO GET THE PICTURE GGG? IT IS ALL DONE BY THE UNIVERSAL GENETIC CODE. THE UNIVERSAL GENETIC CODE CAN BE TRANSLATED, EVERYTHING ELSE IS A CONTROL MECHANISM. IF ANYONE OF THESE THINGS IS AN ACTUAL CODE PLEASE TRANSLATE IT FOR ME. YOU CANNOT! WHAT INFORMATION DOES THIS “CODE” CONVEY OTHER THAN ON/OFF OR THIS/NOT THAT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.