Author
|
Topic: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis (Read 30598 times)
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 491
|
I'm done. Any unfinished business should be handled privately. Thanx.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
I didn't know it was against the rules to delete a topic. Now I do, so it would never happen again. That said, it seemed appropriate at the time since the thread was veering way off course and filling up with vulgarities at an alarming rate. Three similar topics now and I am done, it's not worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
Meep, just so that everyone knows....have you removed the ability for members to delete threads they started?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Hey baltar.. At first I thought you were just trying to be intimidating so I played along, then you really seemed to be upset, that is when I (wrongly) cleared the topic. I really meant it when I said the last thing I wanted to do is enrage people. nobody had ever acted like that in any previous realted thread and I was actually puzzled. Im really not as intense as I may appear to be.
Personally, I have skin of kevlar and virtually nothing phases me. I apologize if I offended you. Accept if you like, or not.. It's up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jucce
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 95
|
Yes, those are some interesting theories. However I don't see how they clash with evolution or resonate with ID. He himself says that his theories fit with the theory of evolution.
...I’ve interacted with other pro-evolution individuals who grudgingly admit that some of what used to be considered junk “may not be”, but inevitably they will still argue that “the vast majority of non-coding DNA does not have any function”. Why does this line of reasoning seem to be so important to evolutionists? I can think of two reasons. For one, if only 2% of human DNA is “functional”, then there is a lot less information that had to be produced by random mutations and natural selection. If even 10% of the genome is functional, that would be 5 times more information. If 50% of the genome is functional, that means 25 times more information. Pretty soon the amount of information contained in the genomes of the various species proves to be enormous if it is attributed to evolution. Another reason “junk” appeals to the evolutionists is because it would seem to run counter to the idea of an Intelligent Designer (or Creator). We can see that in Dawkins’ statements above. But, more importantly, pro-evolution websites have built major arguments in support of evolution based upon the idea of “shared errors” (shared junk), as proof of evolution.
The Talk Origins Archive, perhaps the number one pro-evolution website (along with “Pandas Thumb”), has two articles that rely on the “shared errors” argument in support of evolution. The Talk Origins authors detail a number of different classes of “Junk DNA” that they claim prove common descent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#transposons
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
Panda’s Thumb also finds it important to argue for “Junk DNA”:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/another_example.html
In the rest of this section I will show how those arguments are being obliterated by the evidence pouring in from molecular biology and genetics research....Article from: http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/Pseudogenes/Pseudogenes.doc
I actually sent him an e-mail and asked him. And he says that it doesn't clash with the theory of evolution. In fact in his papers he gives hypothesis dealing with how this system could have evolved.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Good point EP. Rectified.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 23, 2007, 01:59:56 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
