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

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 13:10:16 EDT

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Pim:
> In general I do not time to respond to long, rambling posts. About the
> UCEs however, it is not true that UCEs

I am sorry that you find postings which attempt to actually support
their case ramblings, that helps clarify some.

> 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.

The scientific findings to date suggest that they are non-coding not
that they are functionless. Science has looked at the evidence and find
compelling hints that suggest otherwise

> 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.

Surprising yes, falsifier... Until we understand UCE it seems a bit
early to reject a solid theory especially since data are hinting that
UCE's are not functionless.
Yes, I am aware of the knock out experiments with mice, as I said UCE's
are a minor puzzle.

Let's not blow this out of proportions just because of our ignorance.
Such gaps have more than once shown to be poor places to hide one's hopes.

> --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 13:13:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 13:13:10 EDT