junk dna

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Creationists are in complete agreement with you werd. We do not doubt that this is one way to get speciation. [/QUOTE]

​

Actually many creationists are in complete dissagreement with you here. There are no changes in species according to many at the ICR.

quote:

---

Does that mean that that is how mice and men and bats came about? Not at all.

​

In the end we think a look at the genomes will enable us all to see which genomes are due to this sort of simple loss and/or extension to exisiting genes (and thus advantage on some cases) vs the origin of genuine novelty.

---

​

OK, first, what do you mean by genuine novelty? I would like a bit of a clarification prior to getting into this area so that there is no miscommunication.

quote:

---

The problem for evoltuion is explaining where the gene families came from. We all know that the genes within families could have evolved from the original member. As a professional molecular biologist who runs an academic lab I can tell you that the question is: Where did the protein families came from (which have distinct sequence/'fold')? There are about 100 of these families in the simplest organisms and thousands in man.

---

​

That is the one good point that M. Behe made in his book Darwins Black box (I found his mechanistic attempts do validate his Irreducible Complexity concept to be erroneous at best and tiresome at worst). And , IMO, it actually may be more of a question of origens of life than of evolution. While I agree that the origens of some of the familes is a very interesting puzzle I do not see that large a difference between bacteria, archeobacteria and eukaryotic organisms w.r.t. many aspects of the architecture. The same general functional protein forms are found throughout life. IMO, I think that the answer to the protein families will be found more in the level of functional protein domains; ie the nucleotide fold found throughout and characteristic of the dehydrogenase family can also be found in many other enzymes not members of this family. [QUOTE] The key point is that creationists have no problem with speciation whatsoever. It is the origin of genuine novelty that we suspect never occurred naturalistically.

​

[/b]

---

Well, I have to disagree with you that creationists have no problem with speciation (see first paragraph above). On the second point I will await your definition of genuine novelty before I debate this point with you.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
That NCSA webpage reveals that energy formerly within the black holes *does* escape, if I'm interpreting the escaping photon diagram properly, but it would be interesting to see how the event horizons actually change.--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]I believe that this is what is refered to as Hawkins Radiation where a pair of virtual particles forms at the event horizen and one "half" is inside the horizen and the other "half" is outside and speeds away so the virtual particles can not immediately self-destruct. The energy to do this without violating the laws of physics comes from a minute decrease in the angular velocity of the black hole.Sorry, I've been away a lot recently and now I am swimming through the piled paper. Time to dive in again.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz