Macroevolution: Its all around us...

Excellent. Thank you. This is what was needed to put a dozen posts into some perspective.

So can we safely assume that phylogenies constructed from highly conserved and/or transcribed regions will be largely unaffected by this potential source of error?

Thanks. That's about the best clarification yet of this phenomenon and the extent of its implications - at least for us non-molecular types

Do you even grasp that we are talking about changes occurring in *non-transcribed* flanking regions ? These are not under selection. Only transcribed genes can experience 'selection' acting on the phenotype. This is a genetically driven mode of genomic change that has nothing to do with selection *unless* it occurs in a transcribed region, in which case the changes are very unlikely to be tolerable and therefore unlikely to be retained. Hence: I think this is stated in the context of pseudogene formation, pseudogenes being dormant sequences with the potential to be activated for transcription. Saskquatch points out that the novel process, as he understands it, is not likely to lead to any sequences that would ever be functional, and therefore would have minimal influence on the 'important' (transcribed) parts of the genome that are under selection.Sorry, but you seem to be way out of your depth in this discussion.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-23-2005 05:58 PM

I think we have uncovered some very interesting and worthwhile topics for a subsequent thread that I plan to propose when this one closes.However, it would be nice if the premise of that thread could be one of learning about novel inferences and mechanisms of macroevolution from others with expertise in various disciplines, rather than pedantic arguments against 'evolution' and 'Darwinism' per se. I suggest, for those anyone who wishes to do that, that you start a different thread on that subject and see if anyone wishes to argue with you - instead of corrupting a serious scientific discussion with unnecessary digressions and obvious misunderstandings. I appeal to the moderators for their support in this regard.Randman: You have been told by pretty much everyone on this thread that you don't have a clue what you are arguing about. The path to knowledge begins with acceptance of ignorance. Various contributors to this thread are far more knowledgable than either you or I when it comes to molecular evolution - I am the first to accept that and I am a professional biologist. Your incoherent protestations are NOT constructive. By all means read and learn, but don't degrade the quality of the discussion by making everyone return to explaining first principles to you again and again. It impedes the progress of the discussion and it wastes everyone's time.