Theory of De-evolution!!!!!

Fuck, I did say it backwards, didn't I? Well, it was late and I was exhausted.Sorry to slam the door on you, S. You're right, that was pretty much backwards.

quote:

---

Both articles are "cautionary tales" for others doing radiocarbon dating: be sure that the organism you are dating got its 14C from the atmosphere, not from ancient ground water. In Riggs' study, the snails picked up most of their carbon from bicarbonate with a 14C content of about 3% of modern - the water was from springs fed by an aquifer that is recharged tens of miles away - the water has been underground for thousands of years. K & A's study is similar, but their shells were influenced by ground water that had flowed through 3000+ year old humus.

---

So how does this help the accuracy of C14 in general? Even solar patterns change the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and also the intake rate of C14 by organisms, There would be unforeseen variables in all subjects!
Is the snail the only one that you’re prepared to make a rebuttal against?

quote:

---

But if you would care to answer the question I would be curious to know what is your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, or any of them for that matter.

---

In relation to my flimsy argument? You could of read that a few posts back!
I believe that loud mouth has a good example in his post:

quote:

---

Lets take two DNA sequences, one lets call "strong" and one we will call "weak":

​

Strong: attcctggtta
Weak: attgctggtta

​

In the example above, can you show me how the two sequences differ in energy content? I'll give you a hint, they don't. The second law of thermodynamics applies to the movement of heat, not the order of bases in a DNA sequence. However, energy is needed to construct DNA sequences (one ATP per base extension), but DNA strands of the same length contain the same amount of energy regardless of what their sequence is.

---

And to add, to this understanding that it takes energy to construct DNA, it also take energy to maintain it! There is a transfer of energy in its decay also. What decides the time at which the DNA becomes a Closed-system and can no longer convert energy for the purpose of its maintenance? The system that was started at conception ultimately breaks down! Doesn’t this have something to do with the flow/conversion of energy? My argument is that DNA, as time progresses, is slowly losing the ability to maintain itself, that its ability to manipulate energy for its continuous maintenance is in decline. Weakening, I don’t see that it has anything to do with the amount of energy in a DNA strand, but rather, how much energy will be converted through the function of that DNA.
If the ability of the DNA to convert energy declines then

quote:

---

Natural selection regulates the amount of harmful mutations that accumulate in a population by differential reproductive rates. That is, the organisms with the non-detrimental mutation will outreproduce the organisms with the deleterious mutation. Therefore, de-evolution is prevented by the preservation of sequence through natural selection. Another premise falsified.

---

Look around you my friend! Natural selection has produced an unbalanced Global eco-system that was extremely fragile and inter-dependant when it was balanced(if it ever was) now that it is no longer the case might I propose that what you suggest is natural selection, is self destructive! Does the course that biological life is taking seem beneficial to you? [quote]During your lunch hour, look up into the sky. See that big fireball? That is the source of energy that drives evolution and keeps genetic systems from deteriorating. Whenever there is an imput of energy, [i]entropy can decrease[i] (things become more complex). Even if entropy does not apply to DNA sequences, it applies to your premise here. Even within the confines of your premise, it is falsified by real world observations.[/quote]Let’s raise that energy level from the sun just a fraction and see what happens? Or if solar radiation from the sun is more inclined to decay over time which is more likely that the alternative, then how would this steady decay affect your negative entropy if it does apply to genetic sequences? Something that is said quite frequently to creationists is: You need to think in terms of millions of years to understand evolution! As you would solar decay!... Now define Complexity!! Does it have to do with intelligence? OR the length of an unraveled DNA strand? Or the amount of chromosomes (we would lose out on that one by about 79 chromosomes) Perhaps the size of an organism? (damn those dino’s were big!, But perhaps there was more energy input into the system 300 million years ago?)

quote:

---

Yeah, science ignores data derived from the misuse of dating methods. Leave it to creationists to use lies in order to support their worldview.

---

I suppose that a valid test of the accuracy of a dating method is to test a specimen that you know the age of and see if the method matches! But don’t tell the tester, and make sure he’s not one of those evil creationists or he might lie! EG: ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON | The Institute for Creation Research But then, you probably don’t have time to read about it, it is rather lengthy. And why on earth would you test something when you already knew the age? (Is this miss use of dating techniques?)

​

If I haven’t been misled then you would know that C14 dating is regarded as inaccurate over 10,000 years. So, to date a fossil of any significant age, we go by the radiometric age of the strata that the fossil was found in, correct? Over here Australia where I live (Blue Mountains) we supposedly have some of the oldest dated formations in the world. Say that I die at the base of a rather steep embankment of a said formation, (600 million years old) and before my rotting carcass is devoured by scavengers there is heavy rain followed by a land slide which manages to bury and fossilize me! 100 million years later I’m dug up by an inquisitive hominid who would like to know when I roamed the earth! Because C14 in this case is inaccurate for determining the age of my fossilized backside, Indiana Jones here decides to estimate my age by radiometrically dating the strata that I was found in coming to the conclusion that my fossilized butt is 700 million years old! When you and I know it is only 100 million years old! That is a big margin of error.

quote:

---

Just because we die does not prevent energy from going into the system while we are alive. Last I heard, nobody reproduces after they die. So during the time that organisms are reproducing they are an open system.

---

​

But does the amount of energy going into and being converted by the system decline?(singular) [This may have to be calculated by the weight of the system] (ie a developing Child would use and convert more energy in proportion to its mass than an adult)

​

A question that might be relevant is; Is general living biomass in decline? 60% of the forests destroyed (I think that’s a conservative figure too) how much ocean life has been converted to poop? The more and more people the are the greater the impact on Bio-diversity, the weaker the global eco-system becomes. Observation tells me that the (whole) system is self terminating!

​

quote:

---

Although this wasn't aimed at me, I find it quite ironic that we understand the concepts behind your premises better than you do. You might want to study up on the laws of thermodynamics and understand in which situations they are applied. Entropy, in the case of thermodynamics, is a reference to the number of states a molecule can fill. It has nothing to do with the sequence of bases on a DNA molelcule.

---

​

It was actually sincere! I was hoping that some minds that are more informed than mine could seriously consider it with an open mind! I don’t want to come across as something I’m not, I do like to have a dig every now and again (I can be cheeky)! I do believe that thermodynamics play a part though your are right that my understanding is limited. But like I have said previous I have a healthy imagination and I intend to use it with regard to interpreting observations!

​

Peace

​

Shaun

quote:

---

So that would mean that the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull are two different "kind," as they can't interbreed. In that case, we now have DOCUMENTED evidence of a new Kind evolving.

---

http://www.synapses.co.uk/evolve/lec2h.htmlShow me in this link were it says they CAN'T interbreed!!!
the closest it comes to saying that isAlthough it is impossible to prove the sequence of events, a reasonable story is that these birds evolved from a common ancestor and the Arctic Circle acted as a ring barrier to produce these different types of gulls.Apparently, Black-backed Gulls do not find the pink legs and light-coloured back of the Herring Gulls "attractive" enough to consider them as potential mates. So they only mate with other Black-backed Gulls. And the Herrings Gulls limit themselves to other Herring Gulls. This is another form of reproductive isolation but, unlike the barrier that started the speciation, this isolation is based upon behaviour.How does this equate to "can't" interbreed? Its: Apparently, Black-backed Gulls do not find the pink legs and light-coloured back of the Herring Gulls "attractive" enough to consider them as potential mates. So they only mate with other Black-backed Gulls.Snobbery, not genetic incompatanility!It seems that you are exagerating the evidence a little! Unless your copying someone elses misinterpretation?

quote:

---

But doesn't that destroy your claim and the very foundation you have set up for creationism? Guess that means that you now accept Evolution, then.

---

Not at all, Steen baby!The theory of De-evolution allows for genetic change, but only in a less stable direction, over time!

quote:

---

Recently however that gene "mutated" in such a way as to confer the same level of malarial resistance without the anemic weaknesses. (Since that would be a gene getting "stronger", by your definition, can we assume this falsifies your hypothesis?)

---

I've read about the cresenting and susequent tolerance to malaria but the second bit is quite new! Link please, I cant find anything about the second part! As far as getting stronger? Let’s prove that another function Isn’t weakened first by this mutation!This would, I’m guessing, be something to do with the iron levels within the hemoglobin helping oxygen transfer? This could be informative as to the results of this mutation but it is a long shot!Among pregnant women, a recent study on the administration of oral prophylactic iron supplements to multigravid women in The Gambia showed, overall, no increase in susceptibility to malaria between the supplemented and placebo-control groups. Moreover, the mean birth weight of babies increased and the hematological and iron parameters were higher in the iron-supplemented group than in the placebo group (Menndez et al., 1994); however, a negative interaction existed between iron and hemoglobin genotype; women with the AS genotype (sickle-cell trait or heterozygous for sickle-cell disease) who took iron supplements had a lower PCV hemoglobin concentration and gave birth to babies with a lower birth weight than women with the same genotype who received a placebo. Furthermore, an increased prevalence of placental infection existed among women who received iron supplements (Menndez et al., 1995). Again, different defense mechanisms against malaria for AS and AA individuals may account for the negative effect of iron supplements in women with the AS genotype.Page not found - JSI

quote:

---

We don't even comprise a thousandth of a percent of the Earth's biomass. Not even a millionth or a billionth of a percent.

---

Got a pie chart for me?

quote:

---

Yeah, the connection is evolution. Diseases evolve. Another poster here has an example you can do in your own bio lab that shows how diseases can - and must - evolve.

---

De-evolution involves change too!

quote:

---

Natural selection, however, provides a defense against the accumulation of these detrimental mutations. Moreover it ensures that beneficial mutations, when they occur (which is not frequently), are selected for.

---

Natural selection ends in destruction!

quote:

---

The result is a ratcheting effect that increases a gene pool's number of beneficial genes. It's a constant process and, under the second law of thermodynamics and the realities of survival, it's simply inevitable.

​

Evolution must occur; it's mandated by the second law.

---

The energy input is decreasing regardless!

quote:

---

Sorry to slam the door on you, S. You're right, that was pretty much backwards.

---

That's cool, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt!

Just a nitpick...but that is semantically incorrect. Evolution is change in allele frequency over time. De- implies "opposite" so your De-evolution is the opposite of this change.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

quote:

---

So how does this help the accuracy of C14 in general? Even solar patterns change the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and also the intake rate of C14 by organisms, There would be unforeseen variables in all subjects!
Is the snail the only one that you’re prepared to make a rebuttal against?

---

This is getting a bit off topic, but I will give you a quick rundown of the calibrations that C14 has gone through. C14 has been directly checked by two methods, lake varves and tree dendrochronology. With lake varves, a new layer of sediment is layed down yearly. Any leaves that are found in these layers are from that year. Using this system, scientist were able to find the C14/C12 atmospheric ratios going back 40,000 years. Tree dendrochronology uses tree rings to do the same thing. The width of each tree ring is directly related to the amount of rainfall, therefore dead trees can be matched up with live trees and on down the line by matching the sequence of ring widths. Also, each ring is made new each year and so each ring should reflect the ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere for that year. The lake varves and tree dendrochronology both give us independent corroboration of the carbon ratios in the atmosphere and hence accurate dates going back to almost 50,000 years. What they found is that atmospheric C14 does fluctuate, not surprisingly. There is no reason that C14 should ever be in equilibrium, but the studies showed that they don't vary more than 20% over the time it has been measured. However, current use of fossil fuels and atomic testing has really thrown things out of wack, so dates less than 150 years old are not reliable.

quote:

---

And to add, to this understanding that it takes energy to construct DNA, it also take energy to maintain it!

---

Yes it does. As long as the body is metabolising and producing ATP the cell has more than enough energy to maintain it's DNA. When a person dies this process breaks down. However, this really doesn't matter since dead people don't reproduce.

quote:

---

What decides the time at which the DNA becomes a Closed-system and can no longer convert energy for the purpose of its maintenance?

---

When your body stops producing ATP, otherwise known as death.

quote:

---

The system that was started at conception ultimately breaks down! Doesn’t this have something to do with the flow/conversion of energy?

---

Given ample energy through metabolism, no. It has to do with the accuracy of an organisms DNA repair mechanisms. These are proteins that check the DNA sequence and keep mutation rates at a minimum. The accuracy of the DNA repair mechanisms is derived from it's amino acid sequence, not by the laws of thermodynamics. The only time thermodynamics enters the picture is the energy needed is to attach new bases. Since the attachment of a new base is not thermodynamically favorable, a high energy ATP is needed to start the reaction. However, all four bases are thermodynamically equal and which base goes where is only decided by the accuracy of the DNA enzyme.

quote:

---

My argument is that DNA, as time progresses, is slowly losing the ability to maintain itself, that its ability to manipulate energy for its continuous maintenance is in decline.

---

Actually, it's ability has been the same througout. However, no DNA repair mechanism or proofreading system is totally error proof. Therefore, mutations build up at a constant rate. Over time this build up becomes significant. It is not a matter of it working perfectly and then falling apart, but rather it is the slow accumulation of missed errors that cause detriment within your body's cells.Sex cells are a little different, however. Eggs, for instance, are created in the fetal stage. A woman is born with all of the eggs she will ever have. Therefore, these eggs are subject to environment mutagens. Sperm are continually made starting in puberty. These cells can suffer from mistakes made during meiosis, or the production of sex cells with half the normal complement of DNA.When these cells combine they produce a new conglomeration of alleles, some of which are different than either their mother or father since mutations have occured in the eggs and sperm. Everyone carries these types of mutations. Sometimes these mutations are neutral, some are detrimental, and some are beneficial. It is this factor that natural selection chooses, and it chooses by the ability of these mutations to increase or decrease the organisms ability to produce offspring within its environment. As you can see, nothing involved here has to do with thermodynamics.

quote:

---

Weakening, I don’t see that it has anything to do with the amount of energy in a DNA strand, but rather, how much energy will be converted through the function of that DNA.
If the ability of the DNA to convert energy declines then

---

. . . then that organism will not be able to survive well in its environment and that DNA mistake will not be passed on to subsequent generations. This is the power of natural selection. It is only the mutations that cause the organism to convert MORE energy or the SAME energy that are kept in the population gene pool.

quote:

---

Look around you my friend! Natural selection has produced an unbalanced Global eco-system that was extremely fragile and inter-dependant when it was balanced(if it ever was) now that it is no longer the case might I propose that what you suggest is natural selection, is self destructive!

---

Why should an ecosystem be balanced? The fact that the ecosystem is never in balance speaks to the power of random mutations and natural selection. Lets take deer and wolves as an example. Lets say there is a mutation in deer that allow them to run faster. All of the sudden we see a surge in the deer population over 50 generations. Only the fastest wolves are able to keep up, and the slow wolves die off. Next, the wolves acquire a mutation that allows them to run even faster, and the wolf population goes up while the deer population falls. This back and forth happens throughout any ecosystem, not to mention environmental changes that will throw the whole thing out of whack. Luckily, natural selection allows the ecosystem to stay close to equilibrium by selecting individuals who are best fit for the new environmental conditions. I would say that natural selection is not self destructive, but instead preserves species or at least preserves life within the environment.

quote:

---

Does the course that biological life is taking seem beneficial to you?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Let’s raise that energy level from the sun just a fraction and see what happens?

---

Then it would be destructive. But it isn't higher. Time for you to deal with reality instead of dreaming up fantasies. It seems that you have trouble coping with what is happening in our reality so instead you have to dream up a world where natural selection and evolution are not possible.

quote:

---

Now define Complexity!! Does it have to do with intelligence? OR the length of an unraveled DNA strand? Or the amount of chromosomes (we would lose out on that one by about 79 chromosomes) Perhaps the size of an organism? (damn those dino’s were big!, But perhaps there was more energy input into the system 300 million years ago?)

---

I would argue that complexity is a subjective measurement. That is, it can't be measured objectively. As far as length of the DNA, there are single celled organisms that have 10 times the amount of DNA that humans have. And you are correct on the rest. So what does make something complex? Are we more complex than dino's? Is the human cell more complex than a single celled Euglenia with it's eye? Does the mere ability to use our brain power make us inherently "better" than the rest of the animal world? These are all questions that don't have a quick, straight answer.

quote:

---

Is general living biomass in decline?

---

Possibly, but you must also realise that single celled organisms make up the majority of the biomass. Bacterial cells in and on your body outnumber your human cells 100:1, just for one example. Algae in the ocean produce most of the oxygen that we breath. I think you get the picture.

quote:

---

The more and more people the are the greater the impact on Bio-diversity, the weaker the global eco-system becomes. Observation tells me that the (whole) system is self terminating!

---

No, the environment is changing faster than most organisms can adapt. This is due to human interference in ecosystems. However, the meteor that ended the dinosaurs was much more catastrophic and yet bio-diversity seems fine now. You have to waith for the bio-mass to recover after swift ecological changes. And, you are also missing the observations seen in the fossil record with new species arising throughout all of history. Why should this change now?

quote:

---

I suppose that a valid test of the accuracy of a dating method is to test a specimen that you know the age of and see if the method matches!

---

Already been done. Several recent volacanic eruptions have been dated, and dated accurately (using the appropriate methods of course). Also, K-T tektites were blindly tested and found to be 65 million years old plus or minus 5% among several labs across several continents. The K-T tektites are glassy beads that were created when the meteor struck ending the age of the dinosaurs.

quote:

---

If I haven’t been misled then you would know that C14 dating is regarded as inaccurate over 10,000 years.

---

Off topic again, but the upper bounds are about 50,000 years.

Go to pubmed.org (a searchable database of medical/biology abstracts) and search for "human Hemoglobin C". But what would that mean? If there's no survival disadvantage to the gene then it hasn't "weakened" any function.I mean, any way you look at it, a new function "weakens" something else - the fact that I have arms means I don't have wings. If I had wings, I wouldn't have arms! In order to show you our sliver on a pie chart I'd have to show you a pie chart the size of a baseball diamond. Anything I could post on the web - that bothered to place humanity anywhere besides "Other" - would have a "human" sliver thinner than the diameter of a human hair.We just don't weigh that much, S. One single mammal species simply doesn't accont for much biomass. Hell, our food crops count for more biomass than we do. Let me dig up the experiment for you, courtesy of Rrhain:

quote:

---

Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.

​

Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.

​

What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.

​

But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.

​

How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.

​

But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.

​

Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.

​

But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.

​

What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.

​

But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.

​

Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.

​

So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.

​

So there you go: Evolution right before your eyes. Not once but twice.

---

The only explanation that fits is that the bacteria evolved a resistance to the phage, and the phage in turn evolved a new host specificity.If you try and go backwards - first the phage got weaker, so it couldn't infect the bacteria, and then the bacteria got so weak the phage could infect it again - it doesn't work. The first new "weaker" phage would have been overrun by it's stronger cousins. Likewise for the bacteria - the first bacteria weak enough to be infected by the weak-ass phage would have been immediately outcompeted by its conspecifics.Evolution is the best explanation for the results of the experiment. Other explanations - including your "devolution" hypothesis - are contradicted by the results. No. Life ends in destruction. Death is a reality, it's inevitable for all individuals. Some meet their end sooner than others, that's just reality.Natural selection "takes advantage" of that to eliminate poor genes and perserve better ones. That results in a ratcheting effect that, over time, increases the genetic adaptation of the species' gene pool. What energy? You still haven't answered that question. There's no such thing as "genetic energy." Genes don't transfer energy; they sequence protiens.Of what relevance is "energy" to this discussion?

There is no need to reply to this entire post since others have done so already. I will however reply to this question:

quote:

---

Is the snail the only one that you’re prepared to make a rebuttal against?

---

No, I was merely pointing out that your link may be suspect since it uses a _KNOWN_ false reading to try to disprove the veracity of carbon dating. As far as a rebuttal of the entire link is concerned there are two things to take into account:1. Carbon dating belongs in the Dates and Dating forum and is way off topic.2. This forum is not about debating against webpages but against people with ideas and supported assertions. If you want to debate against webpages just jump back and forth between talkorigins and icr.On that note I would like to say that you have presented some interesting (although flawed ) ideas.PS. I reread your posts and I didn't get any sense of your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. You may need to be more specific for those of us who are a little slow.

Hey Sfripp - Reproductive isolation is not based on whether or not animals "can" breed based on reproductive biology, but on whether they "do" breed as a result of their total biology.As an example, there are cricket species that have compatible reproductive biology, but different behavior. The different species use different song types to find perspective mates, and therefore do not interbreed in the wild.Effectively, these different species "can't" interbreed, because they can't communicate. Calling color or song choice by animals "snobbery" is immature and anthropomorphic - color and song choice is a form of "genetic incompatibility", since color and song display and choice are determined by the genetic code of each species.Regardless, here is an example of a witnessed event splitting one species into two that cannot physically interbreed - the study describes a single gene mutation leading to morphological and reproductive differences: The researchers witnessed a speciation event in a closed population they were studying, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of a snail, and the constraints of the new shell shape prevent the snails with the two types of shells from aligning their genitals to mate. But, the old-shelled snails could mate with the old-shelled, and the new-shelled could mate with other new-shelled snails.Thus snails with the shell-changing mutation are incapable of breeding with the ones without the mutation - even if they are sitting next to each other in the same pond. By most definitions this is considered speciation.I think the snail example is powerful: Humans witnessed it, it is based on a single gene mutation, that mutation prevents mating between those with and without the mutation (reproductive isolation), and the shell pattern is visibly different (morphology difference).

Or how about the study on Drosophila species which showed that 1 specific gene, encoding two nuceloporin proteins, was responsible for male hybrid lethality. TTFN,WK

According to Niche Constructors biochange can HAVE inertia and GP Gladyshev brings the water on deceleration of the same. So, worked up, the hierarchical view even Gould sought, would remand some kinds of direction but specifying what the carrier of the info vs the classic infor itself which may reverse any direction naturalisitically is still as difficult(for me etc) to define as it was for you perhaps to believe PolikingHORNEthorn in the side that JUST BECUASE you and me is CARBON therefore design.The burden is indeed on those that assert NO direction for if it wasnt for some semblence of such in the Strata even Eldridge would not have the bad"" things to say about the dominion mandate.

sfripp,Sorry I havent responded. I have been very busy lately. I have no take, neither does evolution. You must remember that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenisis (i.e. the origins of life). Evolution simply deals with the changes in genetics in a given population over time, while acted upon by natural selection.I.e. living things changing in reaction to their environment. 'weeker genetic code' is not, by any strech, a scientific term. There i sno such thing. Code is neither week nor strong. If the life a given gene produces cannot survive then that life will die out. Those are the rules, thats it, plain and simple.My refrence to cross-breeds was mearly to illustrate the point of how 'kinds' or any classification for that matter is a human construct, and has nothing to do with the reality of the sittuation, that is, that life does not adheer to any rigid categories.I have no doubt that cross-breeding occurs in nature. If it can occure, it probably has. But thats just my opinion, don't take my word for it. That is an assenine answer, and you compleatly missed the point of my post. Colors are not alive, they don't breed. I was using the color spectrum as a metaphore for how life on earth expresses itself.Like the spectrum its a smooth gradation between species, spred out over time. It has no rigid divisions, or classifications. Can you really not understand this?

quote:

---

According to Niche Constructors biochange can HAVE inertia and GP Gladyshev brings the water on deceleration of the same. So, worked up, the hierarchical view even Gould sought, would remand some kinds of direction but specifying what the carrier of the info vs the classic infor itself which may reverse any direction naturalisitically is still as difficult(for me etc) to define as it was for you perhaps to believe PolikingHORNEthorn in the side that JUST BECUASE you and me is CARBON therefore design.

---

Evolutionary reversal at the DROP OF A HAT, but would some presume that only one direction is to be had? The 'point' at which apparency gained momentum must be part of the equation! Does a car change direction without a driver?

quote:

---

The burden is indeed on those that assert NO direction for if it wasnt for some semblence of such in the Strata even Eldridge would not have the bad"" things to say about the dominion mandate.

---

If it has remained static over millions of years one would think it preserved, but then erosion rate would state contrary failing the reqired techtonic activity to correct, which would also play a hand in distortion and varied interpretation, age would be a factor! Too much dominion seems to be observed.

sfripp, you and Brad speak the same language !!No freakin way!