RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,16:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 11 2007,14:58)
You know, I began this discussion expecting to talk about Schindewolf, Berg, and the fossil record.  I was almost immediately sidetracked with molecular arguments - so I took the bait and waded right in - figuring that design would show in that arena as well.  

I began that discussion with a severely limited knowledge of genetics - only knowing that there were genes (which I assumed to be regions that only coded for proteins) and non-coding regions between them (which I assumed to be what-is-commonly-referred-to-as "junk DNA").  With this limited knowledge, I made several predictions indicating what I'd expect to find molecularly - including increasing complexity and overlapping and embedded codes.

As I delved in, I found all this and more.  While my view of genes as solely protein coding regions was wrong, as well as my definition of "junk", my expectations as to the complexity of the genome was confirmed many times over.  I learned that many, many transcriptions (both coding and non-coding) overlap each other - with differing reading frames on the same strand, overlapping transcriptions on opposite strands, and overlapping transcriptions in opposite directions on either the same strand or the opposite strand.  

Such things as sense and anti-sense transcriptions, ribosomal {r}RNAs, transfer (t)RNAs, small nuclear (sn)RNAs, small nucleolar (sno)RNAs, microRNAs (miRNAs) and exogenous small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), were all unheard of for me.  Couple that with the newly minted classification "Transcripts of unknown function" (TUFs), and you're talking about a world of complexity I'd never dreamed of when I made those predictions.

Aren't you glad you came here, then?

"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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