Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
This wide view of a random portion of the mouse/rat genome illustrates my point. The fact that there are so many pink regions shows that the noncoding sites are generally conserved just as the coding sites are within lineages. The question remains as to how closely mice are related to rats, but I don't see anything here that is unexpected from my point of view. Remember, my hypothesis is that the splitting of lineages is a saltational event. I would expect big chunks of the genome to be conserved in such an event, but I would also expect some significant changes as well.
Couple this with the significant evidence in the fossil record for adaptive radiation followed by long periods of gradual evolutionary specialization, along with the mounting evidence for non-random mutation and you have the designed descent hypothesis in a nutshell:
Saltational, non-random divergence of types, followed by non-random specialization within types, followed by over-specialization amongst most members of a lineage, resulting in the extinction of the overspecialized members - leaving just those members that have not (for whatever reason) become overly specialized.
From my perspective therefore, concepts such as "evolutionary constraint" - as they are generally accepted - are meaningless - since all evolutionary events are non-random.
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
