Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam (footprints)

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 - 15:42:42 EDT

All,

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> I think it is irrelevant if there is another use for the retarded genes
> in humans (supposedly there’s 1,000’s of them). The question is, why do we
> have it now, and where did it come from? If the gene is fully functioning
> in lower life-forms, and our copy is hacked-up, then obviously the bad
> version came from the good one.
>
> This is only true the gene is assumed to not arise independently in more
than one organism. If the probability is high enough (1 in 10^30???) that
the gene will be generated (due to a very common mutation?) then the
older organisms might not be ancestors. If the probability is moderate to
low (say 1 in 10^300) then chances are the origin took place only once and
was passed on. Thus it is reasonable to infer the earlier organism is an
ancestor of the later organism. (Please note early versus later requires
fossil record of some sort, which is part of what Don was trying to point
out).

The entire field is based on the concept that these codings are very
unlikely to be produced more than once. In other words, the probability is
deemed to be too low. It is _all_ an inference from probability.

-Dave C

PS
Another aspect is the idea that the bad version has the good version as a
precursor. Maybe that is a faulty hypothesis. I'd have to ask whats the
pathway? Is there a reverse pathway? Are we sure the bad didn't come first,
producing the good due to some event? Can we rule that out?

Things don't seem so terribly obvious to me.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 26 15:43:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 26 2009 - 15:43:36 EDT