How do we know that information was not "front-loaded" from the beginning in DNA? I have read that fishes and reptiles have much more DNA than humans. It would have mean that they could hypoteticaly bear information for them as well as for us.
Interesting question. First of all, if there were genes in fish (say) containing instructions for humans (say) but not expressed, then they would have no bearing on the fitness of fish, and so natural selection wouldn't prevent the degradation of these genes millions of years before we could use them.
How do we know that some gene present in human is not present in fish?
There are such genes, as there should be.
Scientists are often surprised how many genes we have common with unrelated species.
There are no unrelated species, and scientists are not surprised.
Maybe function gene in human is split into four parts in fish and it seem to "dormant" or "junk" in fish ... So - how do we know that other genes are not there too but somehow splitted into parts?
Given that all DNA is made of combinations of just four bases, one can trivially get any human gene by shuffling fish DNA, in small enough chunks.
If I make an anagram out of selected portions of, say, the text of Moby Dick, does that mean that the information in the anagram was always present in MOby Dick?
Such things can and do happen, but so do a lot of other mutations too.
But it can hardly be "front-loaded evolution" unless the genetic material was there from the very beginning, and unless there was some guiding mechanism to make the specific bits of DNA to get shuffled in that way. Otherwise it would just be a lucky chance.
And, as I've pointed out, if the junk DNA was there from the origin of life, then it would have been degraded by mutation because there'd be no conservative selection pressures acting on it.
But if the junk DNA was there from the origin of life it would have mean that life was created by supreme inteligence. In that case such supreme inteligence could safeguarded mentioned DNA against degradation.
But they is no mechanism to do so. Or do you suppose that God performs a miracle with every meiosis?
It comes on my mind Aquatic ape theory. It - if true - would contradict darwinian theory of selective pressure upon functional genes and denigration of dormant ones.
AAT claims that human newborns are fatty and can swim
Float, yes, because their fat makes them buoyant. To say that they can swim is stretching it a little.
I would say that it can be explained by some retro-action of some genes that should be "degraded" long time ago.
Why? The ability to swim has a fairly obvious survival advantage. Most mammals can do so.
Anyway the theory of AAT is no way mainstream and darwinists seem to more attack its proponents as giving reliable evidence against the theory itself:
(2) The proponents of the AAT are, in fact, all what you would so quaintly refer to as "darwinists".
One of them is phylogeny of human tapeworms. Listen to what absurd conclusion this "phylogeny" led: The closest relatives of human tapeworms did not colonize either cows or pigs. Instead, they lived inside East African herbivores such as antelopes, with the lions and hyenas that kill them as their final hosts. So the darwinian conclusion (or better another weird darwinian fancy) is this one: human ancestors followed lions and ate the remains after them. So the parasite switch to humans and afterwards to pigs. So human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion. Believe it if you like.
But of course you cannot quote a single "darwinian" claiming that this is a fact, because this is some stupid gibberish you've made up in your head.