Not only does it not provide evidence for macro-evolution theology, but it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even provide any logical or scientific explanation pointing towards said religion. As I said, there's no scientific analysis for evidence that these mutations are alligator teeth. Just Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â speculation. And there's nothing scientific about that.
Ron, arguing from ignorance is not a strong position. Please read the paper. No body has said these are "alligator" teeth or that the mutation in question causes alligator teeth. The mutation re-activates particular gene products; archeosaur teeth. Archosaurs cover a broad swathe of reptiles; not just crocodilians. That said, the developmental similiarities with crocodilians are striking; read the paper. Theres nothing earth-shattering there; just simple comparative morphology.
I have read every link posted here, and I am familiar with this hoax from previous argumentation attempts. Obviously you are oblivious to the obvious presuppositions that are built into EVERY paper written on this subject.
Yes Ron. The entire scientific community is desperate to provide a logical basis for atheism.
Again, its not so much the observation thats in dispute; its the intrepretation. The difference between the two interpretations is that evolution has an observable mechanism as well; descent with modification and natural selection.
OK. Tim Hubbard says you are wrong.
And beyond that, There are few places where we find that DNA does not have function, but a vast majority where we don't know yet. That being said, when we do look into any part we aren't sure of, it usually turns out to have function. Thus, logic should tell you that a majority of the DNA has function.
And beyond that, there is a great deal of DNA that has function we cannot detect. For instance, we may have DNA that has an obscure function that is only used in a certain environment, or a redundant function that we rarely utilize. It only adds the already majority of DNA that has function.
Who is Tim Hubbard and why is his opinion an argument? Your points are valid; there undoubtedly remains unknown function in the human genome. However, most of it still doesnt do anything. See for youself:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/
Only around 2 percent codes for genes.
Tim Hubbard is pretty smart. He says most of the DNA is functional.
If we could remove the parts we *currently* consider non-functional, I predict we would lose function. Are you saying we could remove over 50% of our DNA and lose no function? This, also, is your definition of "functional".
"Pretty smart" doesnt mean alot and opinions dont matter. If this man says most is functional he is in direct conflict with the scientific community. Even the loosest definition of functional still doesnt apply.
The concept is widely recognized (yes, even among the faithful) as obsolete. It has always been and must always be (at least until the DNA code and the language in which it is written are fully understood) an argument from ignorance.
Your wrong. The "language" of the DNA code was fully understood when its structure was first realised in 1953 (they are one and the same thing), and the concept of JUNK (or NON-FUNCTIONING) is very much alive in genetic science. We cannot pretend that junk DNA has a purpose when it evidently does not.
This is very interesting. Your original post called it an "autosomal recessive mutation." The point is that most mutations are recessive because they are alleles which produce non functioning or malfunctioning enzymes, proteins, cells, etc. It takes two recessive alleles (aa) in most cases (not all) to produce a mutant phenotype (e.g. sickle cell; albinoism).
No, your getting the two points confused. Alleles are recessive (e.g.
a). Mutations are not. This mutation is an autosomal recessive one, meaning, that, when the recessive allele (on an autosomal chromosone) is present and expressed, taplid 2
, which may or may not be present on the allele, re-activates certain gene products; teeth.
The suggestion that these are a leftover from reptiles is an acknowledgment of recessive alleles hidden in the genes of the chicken. We can conclude they are from the past.
This is a significant discovery, showing that it is possible for traits to be hidden (sometimes for a long time) and/or uncommon in species. It is not so simple as AA, Aa, and aa. I might add there is no date inscribed on these alleles except in our minds.
No it probably isnt as simple as AA,Aa etc. For a start, more than one gene is involved and they are cross linked with limb-development. However, we can date genes - at least relatively.
I'm not sure this could be classified as a "mutation" in the strictest sense of the word. I like genotype variation. The allele has produced teeth. Evos would like to believe this IS a mutation to show that random mutation can produce actual mechanisms.
Most mutations are deleterious, or take away from fitness. I believe the burden of proof is on evos to show that these teeth were from a "random" accident, rather than something that was recessive and already there.
"Evos" are not contending that the re-activation of teeth is a random accident. Its very much not random. Single mutations, however, are random, and are highly unlikely to produce something so grand, especially something with striking, quantifiable similiarity to another, apparent distinctly created, "kind". A coincidence, apparently.
This is an additional comment to the preceding post after some reading.
1. Birds with teeth are found in the fossil record.
2. The platypus has no teeth, though they have been found with teeth in the fossil record.
3. Wingless beetle populations are found on windswept islands which are the same species as winged beetle populations on the mainland.wing deletion
What do these all have in common? We can easily infer that deletion or more likely a "switching off" has happened in these populations.
Especially consider the beetles. Selection has eliminated the winged beetles because the wind blows flying beetles into the ocean. The mutant who stays on the ground survives and passes on the defect to the population.
Possibly the winged beetle would show again if a population could be transported to the mainland. It would be a good experiment, don't you think?
All valid points, but none detract from the issue. Why are some birds, extinct or no, able to produce archeosaur teeth under certain circumstances?