RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2006,09:47   

Quote
 Look at this piece from UD ... DS is so dumb ... he really thinks this will have an effect on ToE!  Can you believe that?


yeah, dave, it is really dumb...

Considering
1) The debate over neutral theory is to what extent it affects evolution. This article suggests non-coding mutations can affect mRNA folding, or translation rate (and therefore, protein folding). So fewer alleles might be subject to neutral drift. That is all. This is the latest in a zillion instances of IDers mistaking improvements in our understanding of evolution for a defeat of it. Science is an ongoing process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

2) This improves the 'molecular clock.' As UD has noted, molecular clocks can be off. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1860
Knowing that certain alleles are not 'neutral' in their non-coding drift allows for those alleles to be discarded. Reading this article, it is clear there are experimental ways to investigate how neutral non-coding mutations are. So, I view this as a real contribution to molecular dating....

By the way, how the heck does this support ID? The designer designed things to break easier? So that even changes in mRNA folding and protein translation rates can cause polymorphisms in drug-response? Contrary to your desires, I see nothing suggesting additional levels of 'design information'-just additional levels at which the locally optimal results of evolution can go wrong.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]