Genesis, Evolution, and God the Creator

[gluadys]

The problem with the whole concept of "quote mining," is that merely a term used to slander people who cite the exact same problem but have a different interpretation of of either its resolution or its implications. That doesn't make them a liar. The liar in that instance is the person who accuses them of using a quote to attempt to disprove evolution. In doing so, it is the accusers who have intentionally taken the work out of context.

Quote-mining has been extensively studied and it has been shown to be a quite sophisticated method of providing disinformation. It is not mere slander thrown around, but a serious conclusion of how information is improperly handled to lead people to erroneous conclusions. Check out the citations cited in this thread in The Quote Mine Project. Then determine who is taking who out of context.

Example. Darwin said, "Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory". That is the problem stated. Now he may have offered his explanation, or 50 others may have offered their explanation, but none of that changed the fact that the quote (which is presumably an actual quote) really DID make a point, nor does it invalidate the conclusion of anyone else who cited the exact problem and came to a completely opposing conclusion.

Yes, it is an actual quote, but it is not a "point". Have you read Origin of Species personally? You don't even need to read the whole book. Go to an online source, then do a search on this quote. Once you find it, go on and read the rest of the chapter.

In this part of Origin, Darwin is summarizing arguments people might make against his theory--not arguments he would make. Just as a good lawyer studies the case his opponent is likely to make and prepares to have answers for the issues his opponent will raise, Darwin is showing that his case can withstand even "the most obvious and serious objection" that can be made against it. So this is not his point at all, but a point he intends to refute.

And this is one of the most straightforward of quote mines as no tampering has been made with Darwin's words. That is often not the case in other well-known mined quotes.

Evolution believers seem to think that they have the exclusive right to all data, but they do not. Everyone looks at the same evidence, but not everyone has the same conclusion. Is that dishonesty? Absolutely... on the part of the accuser.

Everyone has a right to all the data, and this is exactly the problem with most sources that propagate quote mines. They hide a lot of the data. If people have only part of the data, they may well come to different conclusions than biologists and paleontologists do. But their conclusion is tainted by the fact that they do not actually have all the data.

Differences in conclusions are common in science when the evidence is ambiguous. So, for some time it was debated as to whether birds are descendants of dinosaurs or collateral relations ( a bit like asking in genealogy if Robert is the grandson of William or of William's brother George). But with the recent new evidence from China, especially of feathered dinosaurs, most biologists are now convinced that birds are descendants of dinosaurs.

When there is no ambiguity in the evidence, an objective assessment should not lead to differences in interpretation. Some conclusions are so well founded that a different interpretation of the evidence is merely perverse stubbornness. Obviously we would have to look at issues on a case-by-case basis to see if and when a different interpretation is warranted.

 

[gluadys]

My question is simply, why not?

As I said earlier, this is a great question, and deserves a full and serious answer. But let me run through a few items in the rest of your post first and then return to this, because it gets at the heart of things.

You did not find provide any answers to my objections and what I have heard from Coyne and Dawkins sound like poor excuses. But among anti-religious naturalists, we should expect the best possible answers.

I am puzzled as to why you would think we would get the best possible answers from those who are anti-religious.

At any rate, I claimed that evolution stands as a pillar in the doctrine of philosophical naturalism and thus is held regardless of the evidence on the basis of necessity.

Philosophical naturalism has been around for millennia--long before a scientific theory of evolution was proposed. (The concept of evolution has been proposed by some since the days of the ancient Greeks, but never given a scientific foundation until the 18th century CE.) But philosophical naturalists prior to Darwin did not necessarily support evolutionary concepts.

Of course, today, philosophical naturalists embrace evolution, but I don't see it as being an pillar of the philosophy, since it has and could continue with or without this pillar. Knocking down evolution would take the philosophy back to where it was in the 1800s, but would by no means extinguish it.

The pertinent question for us though is not why philosophical naturalists embrace macro-evolution, but why scientists who are not philosophical naturalists do, especially those who are theists and among them, especially those who are Christian.

And when you say philosophical naturalists hold to (macro-)evolution, "regardless of the evidence" you imply there is evidence that contradicts the thesis of macro-evolution. Well, what is that evidence?

Evolution, so I claimed, finds a defeater from paleontology and this appears to me to be correct.

I hope to show that this appearance is not well-founded, but based on lack of adequate information about macro-evolution and about fossil evidence.

I also claimed, that it is not open to criticism (not falsifiable) by most laypeople, naturalists or not, who hold it as as dogma.

Obviously, the lay person, like myself, doesn't have the breadth and depth of knowledge to provide a falsification. But there are certainly many people in the field who could provide a falsification if there was one to present. To date, however, falsifications of evolution, including macro-evolution are speculative potentialities with no basis in concrete empirical data.

The scientific layperson, like the person untrained in mechanics or medicine or legal precedents does have to rely on the expertise of those who are educated in those fields. Some such may hold to macro-evolution as dogma, but that is not an inevitable consequence of their position. Some may be quite willing to hold to it tentatively until there is sufficient evidence to let go of it. Which, of course, is what we also expect of scientists.

In your response, all I got were assertions that I was wrong. Show me that I am.

I do not think you are wrong, so much as deceived. You don't have the right answers, because you are looking to sources which are strongly motivated to hide those answers from you and use some very sophisticated methods to do so. Lots of anti-evolution material sounds "scientific" and "reasonable" to someone who doesn't have sufficient background to discriminate between genuine science and pseudoscience. For example, see the next paragraph.

I put up the original post, not because I thought I had the answers but because I want the right answers. Most scientist reject Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium in favor of gradualism.

It is simply not true that Gould's punctuated equilibrium is rejected by most scientists. Yes, it was very controversial when he first raised it. But now it is part of the consensus model of macro-evolution. It is not accepted as the be-all and end-all explanation as he promoted it, but it has found its place as a good explanation of some paleontological data. One of the consequences of Gould's work has been to establish cladism as the dominant theory of speciation and the rethinking of the whole field of taxonomy on cladistic lines. That is hardly consistent with the idea that Gould's ideas have been rejected. (It is also likely that your own concept of Punctuated Equilibrium differs substantively from Gould's as it has been much misrepresented in anti-evolution literature. Many associate it with saltationism, and that is incorrect.)

Clearly, the conflict which is raised here, is with gradualism in mind. Here, the evidence from fossils is not consistent with gradualism. I have no doubts that the naturalists can harmonize the data and conclude that we ought not to have empirical evidence anyway and write a book about it.

In fact, the book was written by Gould. But there is empirical evidence supporting his position. We will get back to this in a full response to the main question.

Now clearly, as a matter of scientific investigation, as I have previously stated, it is important to leave aside philosophical and theological positions in determining how to interpret the data. That will incidentally include naturalism. Though Aquinas, Ockham, Galileo, and Descartes are relevant to the relation of Christian belief and the natural sciences, they are irrelevant to Darwinism (here meaning evolution via natural selection including speciation) as distinguished from micro-evolution (variations within all living species) or the observation of adaptation within species if Dawinism (speciation or common decent) is not scientific which is what is being contested.

One of the important considerations we have not yet mentioned is methodological naturalism--which as implied in the name is a method, not a philosophy. One thing I want to show is the Christian roots of methodological naturalism, which late medieval and early modern philosophers developed. The theory of evolution, both micro and macro, is grounded, like all genuine science, in the methods of investigation developed at that time by Christian philosophers. Macro-evolution is just as scientific as micro-evolution and a necessary outcome of micro-evolution. This can be shown scientifically without recourse to anti-theist philosophy. And it implies the very sort of evidence we see in pretty much all biological phenomena, including paleontology. Again, a fuller discussion will follow.

So, the relation to Christian belief and the sciences, though important, is besides the point that is being raised. I entirely agree that evolution should be entirely a matter of scientific investigation. I am afraid that it is nothing of the sort.

And my effort will be to show that you can lay that fear to rest.

I want to be able to reason from the observable data and thus hold a belief on the basis of at least circumstantial evidence. I am not attacking a belief nor do I hold any position dogmatically. I simply want to know the truth.

Good, that is what we will try to do.

It's 2:00 am here, but tomorrow I will post on the key question.

My point was not of course that any of the writers that are quoted find the fossil record problematic for evolution. My question is simply, why not?

 

[Papias]

Hi Ariston -

you wrote:

@ Papias

It is easy enough to refer a person to a website ...

Ariston, you asked for the evidence, and I pointed you to a site, made by actual biologists, that summarized it point by point on post #15. Is that not exactly what you asked for?

and claim that all of your opponents sources are flawed in one way or another

No, myself and others described why they were flawed. In a reasonable discussion, of course we will both look at our sources, and evaluate them based on objective and rational standards.

No creationist would have any problem with providing a defeater for your positions in this way.

Sure they would - I've yet to see common creationist arguments that rest on objectively rational support. Gluadys, for instance, has gone to some length here to explain what quote mining is. That could be very useful to you, if you are interested.

On the contrary, they do not claim that there exist good fossil support

I've shown you that they do. I've given you an extensively vetted, approved statement by the geologists directly showing that the fossil record spectacularly supports UCA. Why do you still, after many posts, refuse to see that?

Thank you for your time but I have tremendous difficulty with seeing how to move off of position number (4) from my original post on the basis of these responses.

So myself and others have provided you exactly the evidence you asked for, shown how #4 contradicts the evidence shown to us by millions of Christians, and you have no response other than to ignore all of it?

thus far, you have not offered any reasons for evolutionary belief and perhaps that is perhaps more telling than your assertions that I am wrong.

Did you not read the 29+ whole fields of evidence I gave in post #15? Would you like to pick out one to discuss in detail?

and the fossils are the only directly observable way by which common decent could be verified (but it is apparently falsified here).

As shown by the statement from the GSA, the fossils strongly confirm UCA.

Everything else (biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, genetics) does not give us direct empirical data that demands speciation. If I am mistaken, please offer up the evidence from these fields in support of common decent or speciation.

......but my concern is rather that evolutionary theory is not falsifiable..

You are mistaken. Evolution (UCA) is easily testable (and hence falsifiable) by many field beyond paleontology. In fact, if you had gone over the 29+ major areas showing the reality of UCA that I gave back in post #15, you would have already seen that only a few are based on the fossils at all. An idea with the grand, sweeping impact of UCA leaves literally millions of areas were the evidence has to come up in a very specific way, otherwise it is powerful evidence against UCA. And literally millions of tests have been done in those areas.

For instance - lets look at just blood protein biochemistry. Blood proteins are not required by design considerations (say, upright walking), and are highly changeable due to protein shape. UCA predicts that for every single new species found, their blood proteins will be in accordance to the grand nested hierarchy of the Family Tree of common descent. If not for common descent, this would be extremely unlikely (practically impossible). Yet, of the thousands of new species found, their blood proteins fit just as expected.

OK, now you can do the same thing with hormone chemistry, immune tags, and so on.

OK, so much for biochemistry. You can do the same thing with the fossil record ("no rabbits will be found in cabrian strata"), etc, again giving thousands of easily falsifiable predictions for all of the millions of places where excavations are happening. The same for Genetics. The same for physiology. The same for pathology. and so on. The point is that UCA makes literally hundreds of millions of eminently testable predictions, thousands of which are tested every year.

and yet, all of them keep coming back in support of UCA., month after month, year after year.

Wow.

"In fact, all fossils found have been consistent with the overall prediction of this tree of life."

That does not seem right.

It doesn't matter if the fossil record "feels right" to you or anyone else. It is what it is.

Think it through. If we only have roughly 9 million species out of a tree that totals (on macro-evolutionary theory) 1-4 billion species, then we do not have a tree.

Yes, we do have a tree in that situation. As pointed out in post #38 with the "cities" example, you don't need every or even most member. Another way to see the same fact of life is to realize that even if we had a member of every single species that has existed throughout time, you still might claim "how could we have a tree when we only have less than 1 in a billion of each of the members of each species?". Do we agree that to do so would be ridiculous?

"Why do you think scientists today are "largely philosophical naturalists"?

Well, the ratio is something like this: 45% atheist, 40% believers in a god, 15% agnostic.

Now I've asked for your support for this least three times, right? Do you have support, or did you just make this up? Hint - it's not hard to look this stuff up. I have done so and have the data. I can give it, but it is your job as the person making the claim to back it up.

I think that we are both smart enough to acknowledge that we cannot live in a world where we believe things merely because persons in positions of authority are telling us so.

Very true. However, do you understand the difference between the "argument form authority" fallacy and the value of expert testamony?

Ariston, you've made many posts with a lot of unsupported, bare assertions, to which myself and others have offered actual evidence. Can we agree to base our points, on both sides, on demonstrable evidence?

Blessings of our Lord-

Papias

 

[gluadys]

My point was not of course that any of the writers that are quoted find the fossil record problematic for evolution. My question is simply, why not?

As I said earlier, this is a great question, and deserves a full and serious answer.

So here is the beginning of a full and serious answer to this question.

Indeed, they don’t find the record overly problematic, but rather highly supportive of evolution and more and more so as more of it has been discovered.

You are right to focus on gradualism. Why was gradualism important to Darwin? For Darwin, gradualism was the only means by which natural selection could produce the complex features William Paley had discussed in his influential work Natural Theology: or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. You will know that Paley’s thesis is that the close match between organic form and its function especially in relation to habitat and way of life shows that organic forms were designed by the Creator and that each species, being so exquisitely fitted to its place in the natural world both geographically and ecologically must have been designed in and for that place. If Paley is right, species change is simply impossible. Darwin was so impressed by Paley that he practically memorized this book. But as his own thought developed, he realized he had to reject Paley’s vision. And since Paley’s vision dominated both science and theology in his day, he had to provide some strong evidence to support his own case.

His response is that change had to occur in small increments—on the same level as the small variations among individuals that even a Paleyite agreed existed. This is best seen in his famous comment on organs of extreme perfection and complication. Of these he says: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (This sentence, btw, is often cited in a quote-mining fashion without the rest of the paragraph or the paragraph following, so it will be good to cite these here as well:

But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.
The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration.)​

There is a lot to discuss in that segment alone and perhaps we will get back to it. But clearly, if organs and other features of species are changed in small increments, it will take a good deal of time, many generations to get from (in the case of an eye) a small light-sensitive nerve to a functional camera eye complete with “all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,…”

But how much time? And how many of these small incremental changes will be evident in the fossil record? In the first part of chapter 6 and all through chapter 9, Darwin gives several reasons why we will not see every small incremental change in the fossil record.

First, since fossils can only be embedded in sediment, most fossils will be formed at places where sediment is being deposited in sufficient quantities, over sufficient time to allow for enough pressure to compact the sediment into rock. The situation in which this occurs is primarily the continental shelves which are constantly added to by sediment washing into the sea and in the depths of the ocean. However, before these fossils can be discovered, the same rocks must emerge above water, either through the land being lifted up or the sea level lowering. And then it is subject to erosion—in fact, unless erosion exposes the interior of the rock, it will be most difficult to find the embedded fossils. So for any place in which fossils form, there must be a change from ocean to terrestrial conditions; from depositional to erosional conditions. Darwin here compares the fossil record to a grand museum, but one for which collections are made only at intervals remote in time from each other. One might likeie compare it to an encyclopedia of which only a few disconnected volumes remain and between them only rare pages from other volumes. Further the time period in which any fossil formation and preservation is occurring will also vary from place to place.

Second, in a continuous area, transitional forms between two emerging species will be found not scattered among the main bodies of both other forms, but on the common boundary. Darwin uses the example of a species expanding its habitat through three neighbouring areas, a mountainous area, a plain and the narrow range of foothills between them. That third population, being a boundary population, will be less numerous than the others, and less dispersed. So on those grounds alone, are less likely to have a sample preserved in the fossil record. Further, being pressed by its neighbours on both sides, it is likely to go extinct quicker and have a shorter history. So it has less dispersal in time as well as space. Another reason to make fossilization and discovery of a fossil less likely. This situation is at the heart of Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium. Interesting to see that even without using that phrase, Darwin actually thought of it first.

A third practical reason we have so few species compared with the number that must have existed is that so little of the earth’s surface has been explored for fossils. Of course this was even more true in Darwin’s day, but even after 150 years, with all the exploration done in that time, probably less than 1% of the earth has been opened up by paleonotologists. It is, quite simply, an enormously expensive and time-consuming project to conduct a paleontological dig. How much must have been spent by Shubin et al in the five-year project which unearthed Tiktaalik?

Fourth: Soft-bodied species rarely leave organic remains. Most fossils relating to them are trace fossils (e.g. tracks and burrows) which tell us little about the organism itself. Today, we can add that huge numbers of species are microscopic and leave few if any remains. Take that statistic of 8.7 million living species. Well over half of them are microscopic, including some that are multicellular. Consider nematode worms. A single gram of soil contains hundreds of them, but you won’t see them without a microscope. There are over 15,000 known species of nematode and an estimate of more than 200, 000 undiscovered species. But although some fossil nematodes are known, they are few and far between and to say the fossil record of this group of animals is “spotty” is an understatement. When we consider unicellular organisms, the record is even spottier unless they are the type that make mineral outer coverings for themselves (e.g. diatoms, radiolaria, testate amoeba).

Fifth, terrestrial conditions are much less conducive to fossilization than marine conditions, so we have relatively fewer species of terrestrial animals such as bird, land reptiles and mammals than of marine animals with shells such a clams, oysters, foraminiferans, etc.

That is scratching the surface; you can read more in Origin yourself: here is the link to chapter 9 The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Scientists have, of course, uncovered many many more fossils than those known in Darwin’s time, but even so, the idea that the fossil record would begin to preserve a sample of every species or even every genus is highly improbable.

So we have to come at the fossil record a different way. Given that it is spotty, that many species were never preserved, that others have not been discovered and possibly never will be, what does the theory of evolution tell us it is reasonable to expect of the fossil record.

The fossil record is still a good test of macro-evolution—but to see why we need to do a little exploration of scientific hypothesis formation and hypothesis testing. If you are interested, I will post something on that.

 

[KWCrazy]

Quote-mining has been extensively studied and it has been shown to be a quite sophisticated method of providing disinformation.

Evolution is disinformation. Reinforcing the integrity of the Scriptures is quite simply affirming truth.

It is not mere slander thrown around, but a serious conclusion of how information is improperly handled to lead people to erroneous conclusions.

Evolution is the erroneous conclusion. Nobody has exclusive rights to data. everyone has the same evidence. Not everyone comes to the same conclusion. When a evolution supporter points out a problem with the theory, either he is pointing out a valid problem or he is a liar. Presuming he's talking about an actual problem, there's nothing wrong with citing that problem and evaluating the conclusion; either to verify or disagree. Darwin was troubled by the lack of intermediate fossils. That is a fact. Some people argue that there are no intermediate fossils and some contend that Darwin's concern was justified because they don't accept the frivolous notion that all fossils are intermediate. That's not misrepresenting what Darwin said. That's coming to a different conclusion based on the same evidence.

Attacking your opponents is what people do when their arguments are unconvincing, and it's a common tactic of evolution supporters who are sewing disinformation wherever they can.

Check out the citations cited in this thread in The Quote Mine Project. Then determine who is taking who out of context.

I did, and what I saw was not out of context. The quotes were accurate. The conclusions of the authors may not have agreed with the introductory issue, but then there is not promise that the author's conclusions were any more correct than anyone else's. It's not like the author was citing the word of God.

Oh, wait. You guys don't believe the word of God. My bad.

Have you read Origin of Species personally?

Not entirely. I found it incredibly boring.

You don't even need to read the whole book. Go to an online source, then do a search on this quote. Once you find it, go on and read the rest of the chapter.

Again, I don't have to agree with his conclusions to cite the fact that the argument he made was a valid one. If I were to make the same argument he stated originally and not credit the source, you would call it plagiarism. That's just another example of the intellectual dishonesty required to promulgate the lie of evolution.

Just as a good lawyer studies the case his opponent is likely to make and prepares to have answers for the issues his opponent will raise, Darwin is showing that his case can withstand even "the most obvious and serious objection" that can be made against it.

Having an answer for the opponent's argument is not a vindication of veracity; otherwise there would never be a "guilty" verdict in any case. Having an answer is not the same as having the correct answer.

Everyone has a right to all the data, and this is exactly the problem with most sources that propagate quote mines. They hide a lot of the data.

Considering the amount of fraud associated with evolutionists claims, that's kind of funny.

If people have only part of the data, they may well come to different conclusions than biologists and paleontologists do.

I prefer to come to the same conclusion that Jesus did. He was there. Biologists and paleontologists were not.

....with the recent new evidence from China, especially of feathered dinosaurs, most biologists are now convinced that birds are descendants of dinosaurs.

Of course, considering that whole "survival of the fittest thing," the basic premise driving evolution would have to be tossed aside as every "tweener" would have been lunch for a more fit Tyrannosaurus.

 

[Papias]

KWCrazy wrote:

I did, and what I saw was not out of context. The quotes were accurate. The conclusions of the authors may not have agreed with the introductory issue,

You can see time and again that the very next part of the text says the opposite of what the creationist is trying to portray, hence misrepresenting what the author is saying. Should we go into examples? Are you seriously defending quotemining? I guess there goes the 8th (or 9th) Protestant or Catholic commandment. I think defending quote-mining simply and clearly makes us Christians look dishonest. Do you think Jesus would quote-mine?

How would you react if an unbeliever said:

The Bible says that "There is no God"! See, right there in Psalm 14:1!
​

Would you consider that OK?

Papais

 

[mark kennedy]

Did you not read the 29+ whole fields of evidence I gave in post #15? Would you like to pick out one to discuss in detail?

If he is not interested I wouldn't mind, the genetics section is interesting.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

If he is not interested I wouldn't mind, the genetics section is interesting.

Hmmm... maybe. Neither of us are geneticists, but it could be interesting. Which were you thinking of?

Blessings-

Papias

 

[KWCrazy]

You can see time and again that the very next part of the text says the opposite of what the creationist is trying to portray, hence misrepresenting what the author is saying.

No.
The author states a premise and then makes a conclusion.
Another re-states the premise and makes a different conclusion.
It doesn't mean that the original premise; or in this case problem with evolution; is flawed, nor does it mean that the author is right.

It's only disinformation if you say that the author had the same conclusion.

Do you think Jesus would quote-mine?

Jesus would call you a liar to your face if you had spoken about evolution around Him. He is very adamant about maintaining the integrity of the Scriptures, and He doesn't speak highly of false teachers who deliberately lead others astray.

You might note from my posts here that I'm a stickler for context. I don't like verses, I like passages. I like to see things in context. If Darwin saw a lack of transitional fossils as very problematic to his theory, then that is a viable premise. If he subsequently came to the conclusion that there were plenty of transitionals and someone else came to the conclusion that there were none, there is nothing whatever with citing the premise and disagreeing with the conclusion. It's not quote mining, it's referencing a quotation. I wonder sometimes how many realize that there is a difference.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[mark kennedy]

mark wrote:



Hmmm... maybe. Neither of us are geneticists, but it could be interesting. Which were you thinking of?

Blessings-

Papias

Seems like there was something about protein coding genes and psuedo genes. The information in there is a little outdated but I'll take another look at it this weekend and see if we can get a thread started, maybe this weekend