Thanks also for your helpful link. I went there and did a search for 'junk' but the browser just beeped.
Thats because "Junk" is a colloquialism, unlikely to be used as a label on an actual genome. What are
used as labels are genes and other functional sequences. Most of the genome, you will find, doesnt do anything, and, as you can see, that isnt some "evolutionist" ploy.
Funny thing about the TOE. It can accommodate any amount of conceptualization; even if they are contradictory. You see the TOE has the benefit of transcending the bounds of mathematical expression. A necessary condition for a dodgy theory.
"Probably"; Probably this probably that, very scientific.
The fact that evolution can even be
conceptualised already puts it streets ahead of
"one day, god, who didnt have much to do, decided - out of the entire universe - to create his chosen life form on earth, and base all his activities in a small area of the middle east"
"the entirety of humankind is descended from two individuals"
"Noah took two of every animal"
I repeat: the number of nucleotides in a genome does not necessarily have any correlation to an organism's clade or to any evolutionary relationship. What matters is the similarity and differences in genes and other functional sequences, because, as you know:
genes + environment -> proteins -> phenotype
It isntnon-coding junk + environment ->proteins -> phenotype
Also, "probably" is a perfectly reasonable word to use. Im not going to pretend i know everything. Who knows the precise number of neucleotides between humans and chimps? I dont. Through evolution its probably
been a bit of loss and gain in both species. It might come as shock to you, but "knowing" or even "predicting" the total number of nucleotides serves absolutely no purpose in determining - or understanding - the simple observations of evolution.
Nothing? That's not really helpful for your case, is it?
Im sure what your getting at. If you understood evolution as, well, evolutionary biologists do, you would understand, as ive said, that raw quantities of DNA in themselves dont do anything. An individual species might, for example, have a propensity for the copying of terminal repeats in its genome, due to some abnormality in replication or repair mechanisms. It doesnt change where that species has come from, or where its going to (unless such changes impact gene sequences of course). Genomes are dynamic things. You might have more nucleotides in your genome than I. (In fact, you will, because you are female). We are still both "human", because those differences are not enough to cause us to be genetically isolated
. See what im getting at? If, by chance, you and I had a child, that child would also be human, though it might have a few more, or a few less nucleotides, then either of us. Its when those differences effect genes (or their genetic master-switches) that evolution might occur with selection.
I will have to disagree with your statement McStone, error correcting code plays a significant role in how well code is copied. Yes error correcting code in code, brilliant little things them cells.
Yes, the more nucleotides in a genome, the more targets there are for things going right, and for things going wrong. Its no co-incidence, that, on the whole, organisms with larger genomes have greater ability to repair DNA.
You of course mean interpretation of evidence. To convince me that man evolved from a rock will take more than hours of thought out research, it would take nothing less than a miracle.
Lucy. Lucy. To convince ME
that man evolved from a rock would take hours of thought out research too. Man didnt evolve from a rock Lucy. Man evolved from another species of ape. There is quite a big difference.
Maybe I should have made my point a bit more explicitly. Fish live in the water, which is below sea level (for ocean fish) amphibians live near the water, just above the ocean level, generally. The big animals could only survive in swamps, near rivers, which are a direct path to the oceans. Animals that are quadrupeds live inland and on hillsides and above, well above sea level. Humans, well humans live on boats, on ice, on hills and even in space. If everything was buried in a few months, where would you expect to find the more mobile organisms?
I won't respond to the rest of your post. You're not making much sense. You're just tossing ad hominem remarks which doesn't convince me at all that your confident in your own beliefs.
Lucy, you still havent got it. Your just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
The fossil record is stratified
Below a certain level we dont find fish,
Below a certain level, we dont find tetrapods,
Below a certain level, we dont find reptiles,
Below a certain level, we dont find mammals,
Similarly, the genome is also stratified:
In fish genomes we dont find certain characteristic tetrapod genes
In reptile genomes, we dont find certain characteristic mammals genes
In primate genomes, we dont find certain characteristic human genes.
They are mirror images of each other. Your "expanded" hypothesis is riddled with even more tenuous assumptions.