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. During evolution many genes/dna was then dismissed as unnecessary.
I have read also that Venter sequenced genome analyzing RNA during expression of genes. He was very succesfull using this method. But of course he coudnot have caught genes in DNA which were not expressed (which were dormant so to say).
Even now when human genome is sequenced do we really know all sequences of all alleles that occur in all mankind? I doubt about it.
How do we know that some gene present in human is not present in fish? Do computers seek given gene sequence of human in sequnced DNA of fish? Do computer also seek part of it? Maybe function gene in human is split into four parts in fish and it seem to "dormant" or "junk" in fish. I doubt computer is able to found such pieces in real time.
Scientists are often surprised how many genes we have common with unrelated species. So - how do we know that other genes are not there too but somehow splitted into parts?
In such case macroevolution is possible only by simple reorganization of DNA - information is there from the beginning.
You tell us. It seems that you have finally come up with a testable hypothesis. Figure out how one would go about confirming your hypothesis and design a research program to test it.
As Dr. Adequate indicated. Let say we have a gene with sequence ATGCCGTAGC. We should seek if there exist some simple combination of such sequence in assumed ancestor for instance as junk ATGCC and (reverse second part) junk CGATG. If yes then such gene could be recreated or rewired by chromosome inversion during meiosis as Davison proposed in his Manifesto.
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. It would be strange that creator(s) would allow random mutation to destroy such front-loaded code, don`t you think?
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 - something very strange comparing bony newborns of chimpanzee, apes etc that do not know swim. So it seems that human newborns are prepared to swim - I would say that it can be explained by some retro-action of some genes that should be "degraded" long time ago.
I admit that the fact of swimiming predisposition of human newborns could be explained via Neoteny - human kids are born very soon and they should be born one year later. Even Jay Gould seemed to advocate such view.
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:
We know that the information was not front-loaded because we know - for a fact, as proven by "co-speciating" species - that these informational changes are the result of environment and mutation, not pre-programmed changes happening over time.
Its only your darwinistic belief.
Remember when I disproved that back in More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus?
You have chosen an exaple that somehow fits into darwinistic schema. There are many examples when the relationship is so complicated that it cannot prove co-speciation.
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.
If I understand what you're referring to, you read wrong. The Human Genome Project results from Venter's Celera company came from whole-genome shotgun sequencing of nuclear DNA, not RNA.
Venter started with EST (Expressed Sequence Tag) which he obtained analyzing cDNA. As you know cDNA served only to store genes carried by RNA. They wanted to avoid to sequence junk DNA (Brenner for instance believed that junk DNA make 97% of DNA) so they focused their research on RNA where genes are present.
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.
Of course it is not from my head. A darwinist came to this fantastic conclusion. According "parasite phylogeny" (crashfrog sees it as confirmation of darwinism) humans were scavengers and ate carcasses:
quote: Personally, I find this a singularly gratifying result, since I was among the first to argue that early Homo hunted and scavenged animal carcasses.
You know this darwinian fancy is from American scientist online, uf:
Your claim that "human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion" is simply a load of bollocks, and no "darwinist" has made this claim, which is gibberish which you made up in your head.
The same article:
quote: Finally, if we knew which other definitive hosts carry the tapeworm species most closely related to ours, we might learn something of the style of eating and obtaining meat practiced by our ancestors.