Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

IC All The Way Down, The Grand Human Evolutionary Discontinuity, And Probabilistic Resources

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The more we learn the more it appears that almost everything of any significance in living systems is irreducibly complex. Multiple systems must almost always be simultaneously modified to proceed to the next island of function. Every software engineer knows this, and living things are fundamentally based on software.

Evolution in the fossil record is consistently characterized by major discontinuities — as my thesis about IC being a virtually universal rule at all levels, from the cell to human cognition and language, would suggest — and the discontinuity between humans and all other living things is the most profound of all. Morphological similarities are utterly swamped by the profound differences exhibited by human language, math, art, engineering, ethics, and much more.

Yes, chimps have been shown to use tools: They can pick up ants with a stick in order to eat them. But there is a big difference between this and designing and building a Cray supercomputer or an F-35 fighter aircraft. To the best of my knowledge our primitive simian ancestors did not advance beyond ant-stick technology.

I continue to be bewildered by the fact that proponents of human evolution by Darwinian mechanisms (i.e., random errors filtered by natural selection) don’t do some simple math to see that the probabilistic resources are hopelessly inadequate, even when the most optimistic assumptions are made.

Unrealistically and optimistically assume the following base-ten orders of magnitude: an average generation time of 10^1 years; an average population of 10^8; and a time frame of 10^7 years.

Do the math. With these probabilistic resources it is assumed by Darwinian theorists that their mechanism produced the most profound and stunning of all evolutionary discontinuities.

I believe that our ancient ancestors were just as smart as we are. They figured out, in their time and with what they had access to, how to make fire, bows and arrows, art, and much more. If I were to be transported back to those times, and be stripped of my current knowledge, I would probably be considered an idiot by the dudes who figured out fire and arrows.

Chimps are still picking up ants with sticks.

Something very profound happened, very suddenly, and Darwinian theory clearly does not explain it.

Comments
Mr Joseph, In the human/ rabbit scenario did a human develop? NO. Did human stem cells develop? YES. The derived ntES cells are human based on karyotype, isogenicity, in situ hybridization, PCR and immunocytochemistry with probes that distinguish between the various species. The point of the experiment was not to create a live birth of a human, and Dr Wells (the source of your contention) did not require live birth in his claim which you quoted. Rabbit egg + human DNA, combined in a particular way = human stem cells, the contradiction of Wells, and the limerick of Nakashima! What was required was quite a bit of intervention to get the results. That is absolutely correct. Intervention that did not include reintroducing rabbit nuclear DNA. Intervention that did not include introducing human cytoplasm.Nakashima
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, For DNA to do anything it requires pre-existing proteins and enzymes- things that DNA could not provide- This is the big deal with all OoL scenarios. DNA doesn’t do anything by itself. Well, it is a good thing we are not changing the subject from development to OOL! In the development discussion that we have been having, DNA does direct the formation of the egg cytoplasm. Remember that point about microtubules you chose not to make once you looked up tubulin genes? If you have evidence of a protein or enzyme in the cytoplasm that didn't get there under the guidance of the mother's DNA, pleae bring your evidence forward.Nakashima
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Sean B. Carroll's 2000 mini-review of the evolution of body plans in Cell. First sentence? "Species diverge from common ancestors through changes in their DNA." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WSN-4194S59-3-7&_cdi=7051&_user=10&_orig=search&_coverDate=06%2F09%2F2000&_sk=998989993&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWz&md5=2c65ba7f17b91b4a20f80c0e26a2eb08&ie=/sdarticle.pdfVoice Coil
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Nakashima, In the human/ rabbit scenario did a human develop? NO. What was required was quite a bit of intervention to get the results. IOW you have proven your dishonesty beyond any reasonable doubt.Joseph
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Nakashima:
The egg develops according to two sets of DNA – the mother’s DNA the guided the construction of the egg ctyoplasm (including the mother’s mtDNA), and the DNA in the egg itself.
You have a reference for that? You know scientific data? Ya see you still do not understand. So I will say it again and if you still don't understand it is clear it is useless trying to discuss anything with you: For DNA to do anything it requires pre-existing proteins and enzymes- things that DNA could not provide- This is the big deal with all OoL scenarios. DNA doesn't do anything by itself.Joseph
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, You cite Dr Wells: “Design of Life” page 50: To be sure, genes do play a role in development. Nice of him to notice. But to say that they control or determine development is a vast overstatement. Srsly? There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development. So they do control development, just not alone. The vastness of the overstatement is shrinking fast. For example, when an egg’s genes are removed and replaced with genes from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins. Directly contradicted by the human/rabbit iSCNT experiment I cited earlier. Note Dr Wells does not expect live birth, but accepts that species determination can be done on embryonic cells. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate and produce hybrids). Not the case with humans and rabbits, even though their body plans are freakin' virtually the same thing, except for the cute little fuzzy tail.Nakashima
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, But before you address any of that you don’t seem to understand that DNA requires many pre-existing proteins and enzymes before it can do anything. You keep ignoring that point every time I post it. These pre-existing enzymes and proteins could not have come from the DNA because the DNA needs them to do anything. What part of that don’t you understand? I think I understand it pretty well, thank you. You can go back in this thread to when Aristotle revealed to me how to understand the Dentonian vocabulary of 'influence' and 'determine', and you'll see that Aristotle included the mother's DNA. Proteins and enzymes needed for development were constructed according to the guidance of the mother's DNA and left in the cytoplasm.Nakashima
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, Now that is a real ad hominem. No, that is a criticism of your rhetorical approach (in this instance), not at all of you. Please do not take personal offense.Nakashima
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, The problem is evolutionists absolutely require all the devo information to be in the DNA. I don't think this is accurate. It would be more accurate to say that the developmental information that is heritable is captured in the sequence of DNA bases or in some other physical/chemical structure of the DNA molecule. Non-heritable developmental information can be found elsewhere, including the environment (for example, sex determination in some reptiles). The egg develops according to two sets of DNA - the mother's DNA the guided the construction of the egg ctyoplasm (including the mother's mtDNA), and the DNA in the egg itself. Dr Wells says differently? Then he can back up his words with research, published reasearch.Nakashima
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
"As such, your approach to this discussion is exactly the opposite of Mr Joseph’s. While you are appealing to the fog of human ignorance and attempting to avoid the issue of scientific progress, that what was a major mystery 10 years ago is not a major mystery now," Now that is a real ad hominem. I am appealing to human ignorance and attempting to avoid the issue of scientific progress. So the unfolding of an embryo is no longer a mystery. I appreciate your insight on this. Haven't the time to keep up with all your findings. I guess the information I read about extracellular proteins affecting development was garbage. Thank you for the update.jerry
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, As far as I know there are major mysteries about development, not just embryo development but post development too. So what is the big deal. It is easy to agree with you, though I would suggest using question marks, even when your questions are rhetorical. It is easy because terms like 'major mystery' are imprecise and mean different things to different people. As such, your approach to this discussion is exactly the opposite of Mr Joseph's. While you are appealing to the fog of human ignorance and attempting to avoid the issue of scientific progress, that what was a major mystery 10 years ago is not a major mystery now, Mr Joseph's strategy is to claim that there is specific scientific backing for his positions (and then not provide the references). To refute a claim by bringing a reference from the scientific literature is not playing gotcha. Mr Joseph has made numerous claims during this discussion, and never brought a source from the peer reviewed scientific literature to back them up. When Mr Zachriel attempted to assist him with such a source, it was brushed aside. The closest we have come to a gotcha moment in this discussion is when Mr Joseph asked what my education level was. Please note that he has been unwilling or unable to answer the same question after I answered him.Nakashima
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
jerry: What is Joseph’s position.
This: "We also know that if we take the DNA of one species and put it into an egg of another, if anything develops it will resemble the species of the EGG." Substantial evidence has been cited above that contradicts the claim; none that supports it. The offspring of interspecies nuclear transfer most resembles the DNA donor. (Not that it would matter to the fundamental theory that Darwin proposed of variation, selection and divergence, which does not depend on a particular mechanism of inheritance.)Zachriel
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
It merely provides some or even most of the parts required.
Where can I learn about the other parts required?Cabal
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
HOX genes are only switches.
Not right. Suggest further study.Cabal
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
The problem is evolutionists absolutely require all the devo information to be in the DNA. If it ain't there then their "theory" needs a complete re-write.Joseph
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
jerry:
I believe Joseph’s position is that not all the information for the formation of the embryo is contained in the DNA.
Absolutely. But more to the point the DNA does not determine the endpoint of development. It merely provides some or even most of the parts required.Joseph
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
"I would love to have a reasoned dialogue about the scientific evidence for Mr Joseph’s positions, sadly it has not been forthcoming. If you have either Design of Life or the other book that" What is Joseph's position. I haven't read all this nonsense. I believe Joseph's position is that not all the information for the formation of the embryo is contained in the DNA. I believe that is fairly uncontroversial. If it is in the DNA or attached to the DNA, then where is all the information. As far as I know there are major mysteries about development, not just embryo development but post development too. So what is the big deal. This as I said is about a childish game of gotcha. My experience with anti ID people is that there is rarely an intelligent discussion. It is all about trying to find some minutiae that the ID person has wrong.jerry
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
As for supporting one's claims YOU have not supported your claim that DNA determines development. You know why? Because there isn't any evidence for that so it ain't in peer-review.Joseph
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Nakashima, Your "zebrafish" reference doesn't help you as it does not demonstrate what determines the endpoint of development. HOX genes are only switches. Giuseppe Sermonti wrote "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?": Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
We do know the information for the coding of genes which then code for the assembly of proteins & enzymes, resides in the genome, i.e. the organisms’ DNA. We also know there are HOX genes, and clusters of those (HOX clusters), which control the development of body parts during the organisms’ developmental (embryonic) stage. We also know that many of the HOX genes are common throughout the animal kingdom. We also know that the HOX genes only control (for any specific part) the development of, as in does it develop or not, a body part and not what type of part it is, its shape nor the function. IOW a mouse “eyeless” gene transferred to a fly missing that gene, would give the fly back its fly-eyes. IOW HOX genes are genetic switches and routers. And that is another thing to consider- communication at the molecular level as well as communication throughout the organism. Mutations in HOX genes can cause the loss of body parts. It can also cause body parts to show up where they aren’t supposed to. But in all cases that have been observed, the survivors are always deformed versions of the original, with no chance of reproductive success nor any indication the deformity would lead to the evolution of a new and viable body plan. OK so if HOX genes are genetic switches, that can cause body parts to not develop or to develop on a different body segment, what about the information for the body part itself? And just how would unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes account for the use of genetic switches never mind their origin? But before you address any of that you don't seem to understand that DNA requires many pre-existing proteins and enzymes before it can do anything. You keep ignoring that point every time I post it. These pre-existing enzymes and proteins could not have come from the DNA because the DNA needs them to do anything. What part of that don't you understand?Joseph
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
“Design of Life” page 50:
To be sure, genes do play a role in development. But to say that they control or determine development is a vast overstatement. There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development. For example, when an egg’s genes are removed and replaced with genes from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate and produce hybrids). The “Jurassic Park” approach of putting dinosaur DNA into ostrich eggs to produce a Tyrannosaurus rex makes for exciting fiction, but ignores scientific fact.
Joseph
December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Arthur Hunt,
Clive, did you read the essay? Should I go thru the trouble of re-posting it on my blog so I can point to it here? Also, why not post the other link?
No, I didn't read all of it, I skimmed it. Yes you should go through the trouble of posting it on your blog if you want any link to appear here.Clive Hayden
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
Clive, did you read the essay? Should I go thru the trouble of re-posting it on my blog so I can point to it here? Also, why not post the other link?Arthur Hunt
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Arthur Hunt,
Quite completely wrong.
I don't allow links to that site Arthur, and I have to admit I'm disappointed to see that you post there. I've never seen such a group of people so fixated on something that they don't like. It's like they eat something that they cannot stand over and over. On our site, we have actual content, their site is all about our site. It's weird. Satire of that sort borders on lunacy.Clive Hayden
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, You need to read the referenced material. You need to cite it then. A reprint of Touchstone magazine is not the peer reviewed scientific literature, ya know. Also nothing you referenced contradicts Dr Wells. Hard to say, since you haven't presented any research that Dr Wells is basing his opinion on. There isn’t any evidence that gene duplication can change body plans. Don't tell these guys, they'll be so disappointed. Zebrafish hox Clusters and Vertebrate Genome Evolution Angel Amores, Allan Force, Yi-Lin Yan, Lucille Joly, Chris Amemiya, Andreas Fritz, Robert K. Ho, James Langeland, Victoria Prince, Yan-Ling Wang, Monte Westerfield, Marc Ekker, * John H. Postlethwait * HOX genes specify cell fate in the anterior-posterior axis of animal embryos. Invertebrate chordates have one HOX cluster, but mammals have four, suggesting that cluster duplication facilitated the evolution of vertebrate body plans. This report shows that zebrafish have seven hox clusters. Phylogenetic analysis and genetic mapping suggest a chromosome doubling event, probably by whole genome duplication, after the divergence of ray-finned and lobe-finned fishes but before the teleost radiation. Thus, teleosts, the most species-rich group of vertebrates, appear to have more copies of these developmental regulatory genes than do mammals, despite less complexity in the anterior-posterior axis. Wrong- not every structure in a cell is via DNA. I'm willing to be educated. i know that the cell is not just proteins, there are lipid and sugar structures, and perhaps some of them reproduce mechanically without the help of proteins formed by DNA instructions. Which one are you thinking of? Please provide the peer-reviewed paper that supports that claim or retract it. Why don't you Google "tubulin gene" first, and tell me if you want to continue embarassing yourself. Not according to the people who have done the actual research. Then you should have no trouble citing their research to support your claim. Do you think I know all this stuff? Of course not! I Google it, and there it is, the peer reviewed scientific literature on my desk. If your claims have any support at all, you can do the same. Hmmm, two pairs of legs, two eyes, head with skull, brain, spine, heart, lungs, stomach, liver, cute little fuzzy tail. Thank you for confirming my claim. LOL! You're going to need more than someone else's humor on this one. What is a body plan, according to you? Why should I care what your definition of body plan is? Do frogs and rabbits have the same bauplan? Do they have virtually the same bauplan? Do they have freakin' virtually the same bauplan? Wells on his own research isn't quite the same as Wells explaining someone else's research, such as interspecies SCNT.Nakashima
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
As a developmental biologist, I study embryos primarily by perturbing their development. I am constantly impressed by their resilience. Despite my interference, a surprising number of them develop into adulthood. Remarkably, although my interference may introduce various deformities, the basic endpoint of development never changes. If they survive, fruit fly eggs always become fruit flies, frog eggs always become frogs and mouse eggs always become mice. not even the species changes.- Wells "Signs of Intelligence" page 118
Joseph
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Nakashima:
Interesting that Dr Wells doesn’t say anything about “fully develop”. I guess you still need a reference for that claim. As for what Dr Wells does say, he is contradicted by the research I mentioned originally.
You need to read the referenced material. It does call into question our classification though. Until then all you have is your ignorance. Also nothing you referenced contradicts Dr Wells.
I think you are on pretty safe ground here with single point mutations. Exactly why people look so much at gene duplication and then modification as a driver of developmental change.
There isn't any evidence that gene duplication can change body plans. 3- Different cell types arise in the same animal even though all of them contain the same DNA.
Yes, just as a computer program can compute different answers, given different inputs. We know the inputs to embryological development – things like chemical gradients, the previous cell state, the state of neighboring cells. Even things like the orientation of the cell and its temperature. Chemicals and states that are ultimately controlled by proteins produced from … DNA instructions!
Wrong- not every structure in a cell is via DNA. Ya see DNA needs pre-existing proteins and enzymes in order to function at all. 4- Similar developmental genes are found in animals as different as worms, flies and mammals.
Which an evolutionary biologist explains by common descent.
And IDists explain by common design. You are still lacking evidence for the alleged transformations. 5- Eggs contain several structures (such as microtubule arrays and membrane patterns) that are known to excercise control of development independently of the DNA
And these structures are made of protein, under the control of DNA.
Please provide the peer-reviewed paper that supports that claim or retract it. We know that DNA did not come first. We know DNA, just to do anything requires pre-existing proteins and enzymes- things that DNA alone cannot provide.
The germ cells that will become the offspring are created under the control of the DNA, not the maternal egg cytoplasm (except of course that the mitochondria are descendents of the egg’s mitochondria).
Not according to the people who have done the actual research. The same goes for geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti.
Whose contribution to this discussion has been… ?
That DNA does not do what you think it does- just as I posted earlier. Only an ignorant person would say that rabbits and frogs have virtually the same body plan.
Hmmm, two pairs of legs, two eyes, head with skull, brain, spine, heart, lungs, stomach, liver, cute little fuzzy tail.
Thank you for confirming my claim.Joseph
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
VC:
You bring to a discussion of the history of life on earth classification criteria that can only be applied to living organisms? That doesn’t seem very useful.
Surely it isn't useful if it can't be tested and it can't be tested on non-living organisms.
Identical points can be made with Homo erectus, which is unquestionably a member of genus Homo and unquestionably resembles Homo sapiens to a degree that exceeds the resemblance of gaur and domestic cow.
We don't know the extent of the resemblence if we don't have one to look at and do the correct comparison.Joseph
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, 1- Placing foreign DNA into an egg does not change the species of the egg or embryo Interesting that Dr Wells doesn't say anything about "fully develop". I guess you still need a reference for that claim. As for what Dr Wells does say, he is contradicted by the research I mentioned originally. 2- DNA mutations can interfere with development, but they never alter its endpoint. I think you are on pretty safe ground here with single point mutations. Exactly why people look so much at gene duplication and then modification as a driver of developmental change. 3- Different cell types arise in the same animal even though all of them contain the same DNA. Yes, just as a computer program can compute different answers, given different inputs. We know the inputs to embryological development - things like chemical gradients, the previous cell state, the state of neighboring cells. Even things like the orientation of the cell and its temperature. Chemicals and states that are ultimately controlled by proteins produced from ... DNA instructions! 4- Similar developmental genes are found in animals as different as worms, flies and mammals. Which an evolutionary biologist explains by common descent. Multiple copies of HOX genes, multiple rounds of duplication and variation. Is this mysterious to Dr Wells? 5- Eggs contain several structures (such as microtubule arrays and membrane patterns) that are known to excercise control of development independently of the DNA And these structures are made of protein, under the control of DNA. Heredity vs development. If you want to effect this entity under development, you can play with those things. If you want to effect this entity's offspring, play with its DNA. The cytoplasm of the egg only effects this organism. After the 10th cell division, less than a thousandth of the cytoplasm of each cell is from the mother. The rest, 99.9% of the cytoplasm of each cell, has been created by instructions from the nuclear DNA. The germ cells that will become the offspring are created under the control of the DNA, not the maternal egg cytoplasm (except of course that the mitochondria are descendents of the egg's mitochondria). #3 is more than enough to support my claim and refute Nakashima and VC. #3 is more than enough to show that Dr Wells is sadly confused on a subject he should know better. I wonder if Dr Wells has ever used Google and gotten different results when he typed different words in the search box? Also Dr Denton studied genetics and understands his field much better than Nakashima. Which explains why I'm trying to respect his precise causal vocabulary and distinction between influence and determine. The same goes for geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti. Whose contribution to this discussion has been... ? The “Altenberg 16? was formed to try to resolve the issue of body form. Issues of development were certainly part of their agenda, and I eagerly await the proceedings of that meeting being published. Better explanations of the physical, material world are very interesting. And all Nakashima can do is harp on Denton and misrepresent my claims. Claims, plural. "DNA isn't the blueprints." That one faded into embarassing silence. "...resembles the species of EGG." If its fully developed. And you use my definition of species. Now we have a fascinating one about gaurs, domestic cattle, and African and Caucasian humans. I say that because there are more differences observed between caucasians and africans then there are between domesticated cows and gaurs. What piece of peer reviewed scientific research backs that one up? What kind of differences are being counted? What species concept is being used? And let's not forget this classic in the making: Only an ignorant person would say that rabbits and frogs have virtually the same body plan. Hmmm, two pairs of legs, two eyes, head with skull, brain, spine, heart, lungs, stomach, liver, cute little fuzzy tail. What's the problem? Sounds like the same body plan to me. And they both taste like chicken!!1!Nakashima
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Joseph:
The criteria I use is observations of LIVING organisms.
You bring to a discussion of the history of life on earth classification criteria that can only be applied to living organisms? That doesn't seem very useful.
The classification of H. habilis into the Homo genus is controversial…
Identical points can be made with Homo erectus, which is unquestionably a member of genus Homo and unquestionably resembles Homo sapiens to a degree that exceeds the resemblance of gaur and domestic cow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_erectus.JPGVoice Coil
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Jonathan Wells page 121 of "Signs of Intellignece": 1- Placing foreign DNA into an egg does not change the species of the egg or embryo 2- DNA mutations can interfer with development, but they never alter its endpoint 3- Different cell types arise in the same animal even though all of them contain the same DNA 4- Similar developmental genes are found in animals as different as worms, flies and mammals. 5- Eggs contain several structures (such as microtubule arrays and membrane patterns) that are known to excercise control of development independently of the DNA #3 is more than enough to support my claim and refute Nakashima and VC. Also Dr Denton studied genetics and understands his field much better than Nakashima. The same goes for geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti. The "Altenberg 16" was formed to try to resolve the issue of body form. And all Nakashima can do is harp on Denton and misrepresent my claims.Joseph
December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply