...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] And yes, the number of human genes is another fatal blow to the notion that evolution is a purely chemical process that is recorded fully in the DNA molecule. You can tell it's a fatal blow, because biologists expected humans to have more genes to account for their complexity. [IMG]http://mvhslifescience.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/8/9/14891812/4064418_orig.gif[/IMG] Somehow the Darwinian church managed to sweep this bombshell revelation under the rug without much pushback and demands for answers. Only 23000 genes to account for human complexity? smh [QUOTE]Leaving aside the difficulty in defining terms such as “complexity” and “gene“, [b]there has been for many decades an underlying assumption that there ought to be some relationship between morphological complexity and the number of protein-coding genes within a genome. This is a holdover from the pre-molecular era of genetics, when it was at first thought that total genome size should be related to gene number, and thus to complexity[/b]. Indeed, the constancy of DNA content within chromosome sets (“C-values”) was taken as evidence that DNA is the substance of heredity, and yet it was recognized as early as 1951 that there is [b]no clear relationship between the amount of DNA per genome and organismal complexity[/b] (e.g., Mirsky and Ris 1951; Gregory 2005). By 1971, [b]this had become known as the “C-value paradox” because it seemed so self-contradictory[/b] (Thomas 1971). (The solution to the C-value paradox was that most eukaryotic DNA is non-coding, [b]although this raises plenty of questions of its own[/b]). Nevertheless, [b]one sometimes encounters arguments that there is a positive correlation between complexity and genome size[/b], even in the scientific literature. Let me [b]put to rest the notion that genome size is related to complexity on the broad scale of eukaryotic diversity[/b]. Here is a figure from Gregory (2005) showing the known ranges and means for more than 10,000 species of animals, plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea (click image for larger view). [IMG]http://bp1.blogger.com/_KQSgvOOpF1I/RjskjHe8H1I/AAAAAAAAACs/ESxdlwZKVqI/s1600/Cvalueranges.jpg[/IMG] The [b]notion that gene number and complexity should be related has survived largely intact into the post-genomic era, in no small part due to the popular tendency to describe genomes as “blueprints”. Genomes are not blueprints because there is no direct correspondence between a given bit of the genome and a particular piece of the organism.[/b] If one must have an analogy for how genomes operate, then a far more appropriate one is with recipes and cakes. No single word in a recipe specifies a particular crumb of a cake, but following the recipe correctly will result in a cake nonetheless. It probably does not need spelling out, but genomes are the recipe, development is the process of mixing ingredients and baking, and organisms are the cake. [/QUOTE] http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/05/gene-number-and-complexity/ [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3