|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Genetic Redundancy: The Ultimate Evidence of the Design of Life
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 05. September 2007 13:57
quote:
David L. Hagen
Per Von Ruckerson's question:
"Why do men have nipples?"
The key Design based reason is economy of genetic code and regulation. This enables one structure to be used with a male/female regulatory switch and consequent growth of different structures. I predict that the alternatives would require greater genetic encoding and/or regulation.
That works a lot better than "Because of natural selection."!
[ 05. September 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 27. September 2007 06:56
Agree, programs and switches.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. September 2007 09:27
That may be but the facts are that in many invertebrate phyla sex determination does not involve hormones as in mammals but is determined strictly by the local genetic environment.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable"
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 28. September 2007 08:43
Programs may as well be switched on/off by heatshock proteins, RNAs, whatever.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. September 2007 09:43
Does anyone believe that such switches are going to produce new species and if so what is the evidence?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic