^Of course it's 'the gain of a trait if you look at it the other way'!! But that is the ludicrousness that can be evolutionary thinking. 'Who cares which way we go: from no heart to heart or the other way - it's the same! Utter folly. I know that is not how a carefully thinking evoltuionist works but the thought patterns can err on that side.
The simple mistake made is that in going from a heart to no heart you need one DNA-base mutaiton in a master gene. To get a heart from no heart it's just a tad harder: you need dozens to hundreds of new genes and enzymatic and developmental pathways. Many of these genes bear no resemblance to pre-existing genes in the genome.
So, yes whenever there's a fact of evolution it can be readily interpreted as loss or mutation of existing genes. Whenever it's evoltuionary fairtales it can't be proven.
So what's the take home message? You guys may have jumped the gun after watching the diversification of created kinds!
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002]
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 108 by Rationalist, posted 08-25-2002 3:39 PM|| ||Rationalist has not yet responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 110 by derwood, posted 08-26-2002 10:11 AM|| ||Tranquility Base has not yet responded|