<< Subj: Re: evolution archive list
>##### Sincerity or none, Denton used out of date data for his claims, and
>one familiar with the literature and how to search it, he MUST have known
>about the more recent papers. Then it becomes a question of motive. WHile
>it is not uncommon for researchers to use 'old' data to support a claim, it
is >uncommon for them to use 'old' data that has been supplanted by newer,
more >complete data. He can 'believe' whatever he wants to, but if he is
going to use >scientific evidence to prop up his beliefs, he'd be well
advised to use data that >actually supports him.
I hope you are not a scientist. I would hate to think most scientists
regard such deceit as common practice. I would hope those willing to use
fraud are very, very rare-- including those scientists whose conclusions I
++++++ I am a scientist, and I fail to see why you would say such a thing.
If you will read more carefully what I wrote, you would see that I explicitly
say that it is UNcommon for scientists to use old data that is no longer
valid (i.e., supplanted by new/expanded data).
>>Your information is interesting and seems compelling evidence for common
>>descent. Thanks. You say the bulk of the mutations are in non-coding
>>DNA regions. (Am I right?) Therefore they couldn't have evolved. (Not
>>by Natural Selection, anyway.)
>##### They most certainly could (can) - it is called drift. Since the DNA
in >these non-coding regions is neither detrimental nor beneficial,
>therein can become fixed in a population, and 'spred' via descent. This is
>'covered' by the neutral theory, which has a great deal of observational
support >in its support.
Could you explain in more detail how Natural Selection works on non-coding
regions of DNA?
+++++ Again, if you will read what I wrote, I said that 'drift' works on
Natural selection allows the survival of those traits which
allow tho organism to produce the most survivable offspring, right? How
could non-coding DNA contribute to the "fitness" of the organism, and
therefore be "selected"?
+++++ Drift does not rely on selection.
>#### I would not say non-coding regions are 'random nonsense' - at least
>all such regions. Some areas of non-coding (i.e., those that do not
a >protein product) DNA are involved in the regulation of gene expression by
>providing binding sites for proteins involved in such activity.
Some non-coding DNA specify protein products?
++++ Are you purposefully disregarding the words I wrote or are you having
trouble understanding them? I don't mean to sound rude or impatient, but my
meaning is clearly indicated. AGAIN, read what I wrote. I CLEARLY stated
that non-coding DNA does NOT specify a protein product, but that some areas
of non-coding DNA are involved in the regulation of expression..
How is it determined which
protein products they specify? Other non-coding DNA provide binding sites?
How do they do that if they are not expressed?
+++++ Binding sites are not expressed. The proteins that bind to them are
specified by other, coding , sequences. These proteins 'recognize' specific
sequences and bind to them. This activity can influence when/how much/if the
gene product 'controlled' by these regions is expressed. These regulatory
sequences are fairly clearly identified, and typically consist of very short
sequences (on the order of less than 15 bases).
> Most, however, are not, as can be seen in experiments in which large
>amounts of these regions are removed with no detrimental effects, or even
>observed instances of large-scale natural deletions. My own hunch (for
which >I have no evidence, just an observation) is that the bulk of what is
now 'junk' >DNA may at one time have been functional genes, or duplicates of
functional >genes, that were mutated out of service, and which are now free
from the >contstraints of selection. Pseudogenes - genes that have had
promoter >regions 'turned off' via mutation, accumulate mutations at 4 times
the rate of >functional genes. What do you mean by 'information?'
By information I meant coding for proteins or gene regulation. But you've
already answered that by explaining that non-coding DNA does code for
proteins and provide binding spots. Thank you for your patience.