|
Author
|
Topic: Conservation of Unexpressed Genomic Information
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 08. December 2006 15:43
Go to link below for the gist of it. Lots of additional links in the comments of the article. Basically a thousand average to almost ultra-highly conserved CNGs were deleted from a mouse with no immediate observable effect in homozygous offspring.
The Sound Circular Reasoning Exploding
This Nature paper below should also be read for the particulars but it doesn't talk much of the amazement that Rubin experienced when the transgenic mice showed exhibited no problems.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice
[ 08. December 2006, 15:46: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Paros
Member
Member # 4781
|
posted 10. April 2007 15:24
I have specific questions regarding specific content in Langan's publication titled Cognitive Theoretical Model of the Universe. However, the forum website is not allowing me to even enter into the relevant areas. I was forced to post this here since the forum website is not allowing me to post new topics anywhere, including the Brainstorm area. I would appreciate any help.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. April 2007 00:59
Planning for the future may not be involved. There is no indication that any living creature has a future any different from what it is right now beyond minor adjustments that can be expressed through Mendelian means. Mendelian devices are apparently incapable even of true speciation and surely HAD nothing to do with creative evolution in the past. All present evidence points to a finished scenario at least for natural processes. All I see are trivial modifications most of which are either reversible, which evolution has never been, or consist of deleterious genetic changes leading inexorably to extinction. The age of creative evolution is long past. We are now in the age of extinction, the stage which Otto Schindewolf called "typolysis". His "typogenesis" is no longer in operation. Grasse reached a similar conclusion.
"The period of great fecundity is over: present biological evolution appears as a weakened process, declining or nearing its end. Aren't we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?"
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71
I answer yes to all three of Grasse's questions.
When did a Darwinian last ask a question, or for that matter, when did a religious fanatic ask one? I can't recall myself. Ideologues don't ask questions as they already have all the answers. For the Darwinians it is their precious omnipotent "selection," for others it is "divine intervention," neither of which ever had anything to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past.
"Selection is only a negative principle, an eliminator, and as such is trivial: it asserts and explains only the nonexistence of forms that could not possibly exist under the condition in question.
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360.
Discussing horse evolution, Schindewolf again -
"...selection could ony intervene after the horse, USING THE SPECIALIZATION IT HAD ALREADY ACQUIRED, occupied the plains. Only there did meaningful preconditions exist upon which selection could operate, and this happened only during the CONCLUDING PORTION OF HORSE EVOLUTION."
ibid, his emphasis.
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies , but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406.
So you see not only did natural selection have absolutely nothing to do with evolution, it actually prevented it and it still does!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
"La commedia e finita."
Pagliacci
[ 12. April 2007, 10:05: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. April 2007 10:02
Before this thread gets carried away with responses, may I ask if DaveScot (David Springer) is one of the chosen who can introduce topics here as he is at Uncommon Descent.
I am simply trying to establish the ground rules that are in effect here at "brainstorms." Are they the same as those at Uncommon Descent where only certain posters are allowed to introduce topics for discussion? If that is the case, I would like to know who they are as neither Martin nor I seem to be among them. Am I missing something and if I am, what?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. April 2007 03:38
Well? Is this just one more demonstration that critics of established ideologies are not allowed to exist? So it seems to this investigator.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic