RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2010,12:15   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 20 2010,12:05)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 19 2010,22:05)
have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?

Sciency-sounding cargo-cult drivel which impresses the creotards.

but he's not a christian nor a humanist!!!!!!11!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JohnW



Posts: 2324
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2010,12:33   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 20 2010,10:15)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 20 2010,12:05)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 19 2010,22:05)
have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?

Sciency-sounding cargo-cult drivel which impresses the creotards.

but he's not a christian nor a humanist!!!!!!11!

No - he's a sciency-sounding cargo-cult drivelist.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3608
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2010,14:27   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 20 2010,00:05)
have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?

Looks like equivocation to me.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10326
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2010,13:51   

Via "The Panda's Thumb"

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/explore-evolution

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2010,10:48   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2010,13:51)
Via "The Panda's Thumb"

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/explore-evolution

Woohoo! As a participant in the NCSE-sponsored wiki-based critique of EE, I wondered when this was going to see the light of day. The PT page also links to a pamphlet (pdf) published by the British Center for Science Education. I looked at that, and my contribution (a takedown of the lie that this book uses the modern pedagogical approach known as inquiry-based learning) was used almost verbatim (p. 6 of the pamphlet). They do, of course, change the spelling to "enquiry". But they left in the bit about DaveTard; he's globally even more famous now..

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Evolution-FTW



Posts: 1
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2010,12:29   

In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2010,12:41   

That's because Scots are special, not common!

They were Pict by God.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10326
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2010,14:29   

Quote (Evolution-FTW @ Jan. 24 2010,12:29)
In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?

Welcome!

Start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2010,08:42   

Quote (Evolution-FTW @ Jan. 24 2010,12:29)
In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?

Well, to be fair, they are working on devolution...

Scottish Devolution

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2010,04:14   

Quote (Evolution-FTW @ Jan. 24 2010,12:29)
In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?

When something can't be seen in and of itself, you have to look for less-direct evidence.
As an example, take black holes. By definition, you can't see a black hole, because the damn thing's gravity is so strong that not even light can escape its ferocious pull. So how can you tell whether or not black holes exist? By looking for indications of their gravity. One possibility: If you happen to see a bunch of stuff moving around as if all that stuff were orbiting a single massive body, but you can't see anything at all where that massive body ought to be, you might just be 'looking' at a black hole.
Another possibility: Say you can measure how fast an object is moving in its orbit, and you keep on measuring until you've got at least one complete orbit's worth of data. You can use that data to figure out (a) the radius of the object's orbit, and (b) the strength of the gravity field the object is orbiting within. Depending on how strong the gravity field is, compared to the radius of the object's orbit, you might be 'seeing' a black hole there, too.

Does that help you understand how you can learn about something by indirect means?

Now, what sort of indirect means could you use to learn something about a common ancestor you don't have access to? Well, by definition, a common ancestor has descendants, right? And descendants tend to inherit things from their ancestors. As well, descendants tend not to inherit stuff from living things that were not their ancestors. This means that a bunch of critters that are all descended from a common ancestor, should be more similar to each other than are a bunch of critters which aren't all descended from a common ancestor. So if you see a bunch of different species which are a lot more similar to each other than they really have any right to be, those species might all be descended from a common ancestor; if they are, it's a good bet that the traits which are most common to all of these species, are traits which they all inherited from their common ancestor.

Obviously, I haven't even pretended to get into the nitty-gritty details of How It's Actually Done In Practice. But does the above text at least give you a sense of how a person who was interested could learn about a common ancestor they don't have access to?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3608
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2010,13:00   

I'd like to point out that DNA testing is more reliable than marriage records for determining kinship.

Extrapolate the methods of paternity testing and you have one of the strongest lines of evidence for common descent.

Or, as they say at UD, common ancestry.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4526
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2010,21:22   

For anyone who thinks phylogenetic analysis is worthless, they should consider the $360 million settlement in the Larry Hillblom case.

Quote

"The circumstantial evidence was lovely; that's what got them to the lawsuit in the first place," says Neufeld. "It was the scientific evidence that finally got them a settlement. They can say that until they were blue in the face, but if you can prove that it's 100,000 times more likely that he has those genes because he's the son of Larry Hillblom, that trumps everything else."


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Bob O'H



Posts: 1996
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2010,06:22   

I have a friend who works for the forensic labs in Helsinki.  They had a shooting in a school last year, and the quickest identification of the bodies was done through the DNA work.  He was also involved in identification of victims of the Boxing Day tsunami.

Oh, and his PhD was on the phylogeography of seals.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
cdanner



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:21   

I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:24   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

Welcome.

Please define "molecular evolution" so that we can discuss it, and the evidence for and against it, from a common ground.

Please define "primitive lifeforms".

More precisely, what sort of "evidence" would you expect to see in "primitive lifeforms", and why would you expect to see it, based on your understanding of evolutionary theory?

thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:30   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

Welcome again!
 
Quote
The genetic code is almost universal. The same codons are assigned to the same amino acids and to the same START and STOP signals in the vast majority of genes in animals, plants, and microorganisms. However, some exceptions have been found. Most of these involve assigning one or two of the three STOP codons to an amino acid instead.

 
Quote
Nuclear genes
Violations of the universal code are far rarer for nuclear genes.

A few unicellular eukaryotes have been found that use one or two (of their three) STOP codons for amino acids instead.
Nonstandard Amino Acids

The vast majority of proteins are assembled from the 20 amino acids listed above even though some of these may be chemically altered, e.g. by phosphorylation, at a later time.
However, two cases have been found where an amino acid that is not one of the standard 20 is inserted by a tRNA into the growing polypeptide.

   * selenocysteine. This amino acid is encoded by UGA. UGA is still used as a chain terminator, but the translation machinery is able to discriminate when a UGA codon should be used for selenocysteine rather than STOP. This codon usage has been found in certain Archaea, eubacteria, and animals (humans synthesize 25 different proteins containing selenium).
   * pyrrolysine. In several species of Archaea and bacteria, this amino acid is encoded by UAG. How the translation machinery knows when it encounters UAG whether to insert a tRNA with pyrrolysine or to stop translation is not yet known.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html
Does that help? Does that count as the kind of variance you mean?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:30   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

Part of the answer may be that there are no "lower primitive life forms" - even what we commonly call "lower" or "simpler" (such as bacteria) have evolved for the same length of time as fish, mammals, etc.  I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence of molecular evolution" though - what molecules do you have in mind?

If we started out with primitive forms of RNA, for example, it had to happen early for life to evolve at all, and as life evolved, more "advanced" forms of the RNA could arise through the various natural means.  The forms that were superior would, over time, replace the less fit forms, and they would disappear (except perhaps in extremophiles - at least this is one hypothesis I have heard, and some are looking into it).

We obviously can't look at fossil traces and determine the molecular make-up of organisms, and if the genes themselves have mutated beyond what they originally were, then we might not have evidence we can look at.  The only hope would be to find creatures that have conserved the more primitive forms.  

Anyone else?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:45   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,08:21)
Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc?

Well, the most accessable relevant arguments are in two Carl Woese papers; “The universal ancestor” (1998 PNAS Vol. 95, Issue 12, 6854-6859), and “On the evolution of Cells” (2002 PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747).

Woese is the fellow who discovered that the "bacteria" were really two groups, with the Archaea being the more primitive. This split was prior to the origin of eukaryotes by endosymbiosis. These developments, by the way, correct your misunderstanding that we are unable to detect that micro-organisms underwent evolutionary differentiation.

The situation is that as the RNA to DNA transformation was happening, the exchange of genetic material and products was very promiscuous. There was a sort of homogenization caused by what we call "lateral transfer." This is how all life on Earth has nearly the same organization of DNA, and RNA. (For a review of the sequence of events in the evolution of DNA, and the sequential addition of amino acids available for peptide and protein building, see Edward N. Trifonov, 2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles," Journal of Biomolecular Structure &
Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004)

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 18 2010,08:49

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:07   

Every time someone bumps this, I keep hoping to see a post by Paul Nelson saying they are creating a forum for EE. Oh well, maybe next time.

  
cdanner



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,16:40   

The problem that I am trying to describe is the lack of evidence in simple life, in which molecular biology has shown the design of a cell is the same for basically all living systems on earth. The roles of the RNA, DNA, proteins, and amino acids are identical, as well. Wouldn't one see some kind of evolutionary sequence within any structure that might evidence evolution. I mean, there has been no change (and no proof) in genetic communication within a cell for over 2 billion years. Again, I am asking, wouldn't there be evidence of evolutionary change in this process alone? Thank you for the answers.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,16:49   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,16:40)
Again, I am asking, wouldn't there be evidence of evolutionary change in this process alone? Thank you for the answers.

What would you expect that evidence to look like?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,16:52   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,16:40)
The roles of the RNA, DNA, proteins, and amino acids are identical, as well.

A few posts ago I put a few paragraphs up showing that is not true. If I'm understanding what you are asking anyway.

Did you see it? Does "identical" mean something different to you then me?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,17:07   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,16:40)
The problem that I am trying to describe is the lack of evidence in simple life, in which molecular biology has shown the design of a cell is the same for basically all living systems on earth.

And, as noted above, your "problem" would be easier to address if you can clarify it for us. So I'll repeat what I wrote above, just in case you missed it.

-----------------------
Please define "molecular evolution" so that we can discuss it, and the evidence for and against it, from a common ground.

Please define "primitive lifeforms".

More precisely, what sort of "evidence" would you expect to see in "primitive lifeforms", and why would you expect to see it, based on your understanding of evolutionary theory?
----------------------

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Henry J



Posts: 4116
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:15   

I would expect that for species with common ancestry, the "roles of the RNA, DNA, proteins, and amino acids" would be very similar (even if not always entirely identical as somebody pointed out above), because changes at that level are apt to break something, more so than changes in proteins that aren't used in the basic machinery.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4526
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:21   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

Actually, you are working from false premises. One does see variation in the genetic code, and those variations form a phylogeny, too. I believe the researchers' names to search on would be Landweber and Knight, IIRC.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:53   

I am no chemist, but I wonder if the coding for amino acids is not random, but related to the structure of the aa. Also, I would expect there to be little change in the coding because any change would disrupt virtually every protein produced by an organism and the chances of the organism being still viable would be extremely remote.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1016
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:53   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 18 2010,18:21)
Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

Actually, you are working from false premises. One does see variation in the genetic code, and those variations form a phylogeny, too. I believe the researchers' names to search on would be Landweber and Knight, IIRC.

This is what I found doing that search!

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4526
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,22:26   

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 18 2010,18:53)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 18 2010,18:21)
Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

Actually, you are working from false premises. One does see variation in the genetic code, and those variations form a phylogeny, too. I believe the researchers' names to search on would be Landweber and Knight, IIRC.

This is what I found doing that search!

Ah. It's good to know that I haven't forgotten everything yet.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 4116
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,22:51   

Quote
Richard Simons, posted 2/18/10 5:53 PM
I am no chemist, but I wonder if the coding for amino acids is not random, but related to the structure of the aa. Also, I would expect there to be little change in the coding because any change would disrupt virtually every protein produced by an organism and the chances of the organism being still viable would be extremely remote.

I'm no chemist either, but my guess is that the chemicals used in the assembly of proteins would pretty much have to be structured to grab the required amino acid and not any of the others. So my guess is that the coding can't be random.

Henry

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,23:14   

Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth!
Okay, this sentence is a bit of a red flag for those of us who have been around the Creationism-versus-evolution block a few times, because it just so happens that "I'm a good little scholar/truthseeker/Evolutionist, honest I am, but I just have some questions..." is an opening gambit which has been used by Creationists more than a few times. And even if it weren't, why bother with that "honest question" verbiage in the first place? Just ask the question without the extra justificationariness, and save a bit of wear and tear on your typing fingers!
 
Quote
Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc?
Given the fact that there are a number of alternative genetic codes, it is not entirely clear that "all living creatures on Earth" do "essentially have the same molecular biological design". However, granting the premise of your question for the sake of argument, it seems to me that anything which which genuinely is shared by all living things on Earth, should be explicable as having been inherited from whatever ancestor(s) is (are?) shared by all lifeforms on Earth.
Quote
If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level.
First: Show me a guy who has no idea what a zibbleblorf might be, and I'll show you a guy who wouldn't recognize a zibbleblorf if one was chewing on their face. So can you tell me what this "evidence... of variance at this level" stuff looks like? If you can't tell me what this "evidence... of variance at this level" stuff looks like, how the heck do you know that no such evidence exists? Does the existence of alternative genetic codes count as "evidence... of variance at this level"?
Second: On the assumption that "evidence of molecular evolution" refers to something we can learn about by examining DNA sequences, it's worth noting that it's trivially easy to study the DNA sequences of living critters. It is also worth noting that it's appreciably less easy to study the DNA sequences of critters what was alive a couple billion years ago... seeing as how, you know, we don't actually have any DNA sequences from critters what was alive a couple billion years ago. But if you're willing to accept the proposition that the present-day DNA sequences of present-day critters can display indications of whatever flavors of genetic change may have occured in past generations, the lack of actual gigayears-old DNA sequences isn't all that crippling an obstacle to scientific study.

  
  859 replies since July 13 2007,13:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (29) < ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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