Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,093 Year: 5,350/9,624 Month: 375/323 Week: 15/204 Day: 15/21 Hour: 0/5

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
Inactive Member

Message 2 of 367 (30093)
01-24-2003 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by drummachine
01-23-2003 9:30 PM

Well, just in general? In the published results of 150 years of research.
Most prominent evidence? IMHO, the very way nature is put together; the whole family three of species, ecosystems, food chains, the competitive nature of -nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by drummachine, posted 01-23-2003 9:30 PM drummachine has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 28 of 367 (30411)
01-28-2003 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by peter borger
01-25-2003 8:07 PM

Peter Borger:
Design can be concluded from genetic redundancies. If they don't demonstrate association with gene duplication and do not change faster than essential genes they can be taken as proof for design. That's exactly what we see in life. So, the debate can be concluded: design.
Sorry for the late reaction, I dont come around this boar so often.
Could you elaborate a bit on the above? I can understand that in principle, some changes in essential genes will be weeded out by selection, whereas this will probably not happen in redundant (or receeding) genes, but can you point to any documentation that this has been verified? To my knowledge, our decoding of genes is still very incomplete, so are we at present able to say with any certainty which genes are redundant? Have we verified the exact role of the seemingly redundant genes?
Please, no abbeviations, I'm new here and I dont find it productive to guess at what various letter codes mean.
Cheers, Hans

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John, posted 01-28-2003 9:01 AM MRC_Hans has replied
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 01-28-2003 7:27 PM MRC_Hans has not replied
 Message 36 by peter borger, posted 01-28-2003 7:28 PM MRC_Hans has replied

Inactive Member

Message 30 of 367 (30435)
01-28-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by John
01-28-2003 9:01 AM

Sometimes people's login IDs are abbreviated as well.
LMAO, U got me there, heheh. The MRC thingy is an old handle with no relevance to boards like this. I just stick to it so old friends may recognize me.
Yes, I later read up on GUToB. I hope Peter can educate me sometime, because off-hand I dont think it makes too much sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John, posted 01-28-2003 9:01 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John, posted 01-28-2003 11:10 AM MRC_Hans has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 41 of 367 (30568)
01-29-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by peter borger
01-28-2003 7:28 PM

Dear Peter Borger
I will seek to read those papers you suggested, provided they are available for me somewhere, but it may take some time. In the meantime: This theory of yours seems rather sensational. Also I have not seen it elsewhere. This is of course an appeal to authority, but, I think, a justified one, since I am not a specialist in molecular biology myself: Why is it this theory has not made a heavier impression throughout the scientific world? I do trust you have published it in the appropriate places?
Best regards, Hans
Edited to add "Borger" in the heading as I now realize that just "Peter" is a different poster. My error, sorry.
[This message has been edited by MRC_Hans, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by peter borger, posted 01-28-2003 7:28 PM peter borger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024