Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

From: Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 07:57:24 EDT

Pim:

In general I do not time to respond to long, rambling posts. About the UCEs
however, it is not true that UCEs have been found to be important for
development and gene regulation. What you are repeating is evolutionary
conjecture from normal science, which presupposes evolution is true. The
only scientific findings we have to date suggest they are functionless.
Massive knockout experiments on mice revealed no problems, though extensive
fitness tests were performed. This strongly suggests that from an
evolutionary perspective, the UCEs are not functionally constrained. It
makes no sense on evolution that functionally unconstrained sequences would
be identical in distant species. This is an unambiguous falsifier and,
needless to say, was very surprising to evolutionists.

--Cornelius

> If the findings are correct that UCE's are important for development and
> gene regulation then why should we accept UCE's as evidence against
> evolution? So when Cornelius states, that UCE's are not functionally
> constrained, I assume he means that they are not involved in coding of
> proteins.
Received on Wed Sep 21 08:02:11 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 08:02:11 EDT