Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is not an actual sin to provide depth to your comments/observations/arguments.
And whether we understand the water cycle - or whether Mars had it before - is not the point. The point is that there's nothing miraculous about the particular values the relevant parameters take.
Your decision. *shrugs*
You're always welcome so long as you remain civil
To be honest I don't know much about the mechanism. I found this very old mailing list post, but there doesn't seem to be a lot about the actual mechanisms. I suggest you ask someone who knows a lot about recombination and DNA repair. My best guess is that a piece of a chromosome is accidentally broken off and then put back in the wrong place (there are known ways of putting broken DNA back together, that much I remember from my biochemistry class last semester
).Actually, morphological change isn't that mysterious. You can often track down morphological changes to specific mutations in specific genes or their regulatory regions. Genes that control development can affect various aspects of morphology relatively easily. Development is a wonderfully intricate network of interactions; each controlling where, when and in what amounts things (proteins, cell types, tissues, organs) are produced.
It has no function (I know of) - and that's why it can't be put down to intelligent design.
You seem to be confusing evidence for evolution with evidence for how some evolutionary events happened.
) to find that out.
You're always welcome so long as you remain civil
To be honest I don't know much about the mechanism. I found this very old mailing list post, but there doesn't seem to be a lot about the actual mechanisms. I suggest you ask someone who knows a lot about recombination and DNA repair. My best guess is that a piece of a chromosome is accidentally broken off and then put back in the wrong place (there are known ways of putting broken DNA back together, that much I remember from my biochemistry class last semester
Actually, morphological change isn't that mysterious. You can often track down morphological changes to specific mutations in specific genes or their regulatory regions. Genes that control development can affect various aspects of morphology relatively easily. Development is a wonderfully intricate network of interactions; each controlling where, when and in what amounts things (proteins, cell types, tissues, organs) are produced.
An example of simple genetic changes leading to visible morphological change is the pelvic spines of three-spine sticklebacks. Sticklebacks can reduce or regrow pelvic spines (in fact, the entire pelvis) by mutations in a gene called Pitx1. The gene is expressed in many different parts of a stickleback embryo, and a different "switch" corresponds to each body part. A mutation in one switch can increase, decrease or turn off the expression of the gene in a body part, and since Pitx1 controls other genes, the whole pathway producing, say, a pelvis, is affected. You can find little videos on stickleback spines and their genetic switches here.
It has no function (I know of) - and that's why it can't be put down to intelligent design.
You seem to be confusing evidence for evolution with evidence for how some evolutionary events happened.
What we (including us biology people) usually mean by evolution on this forum includes several related ideas. Technically, "evolution" is simply a change in the genetic make-up of a population. Descent with modification is basically this; and that's where the specific changes that happened from some prehistoric ape to humans belong. A related idea is common descent: really, if creatures are capable of descent with modification, couldn't they come from a common ancestor by that process?
Now, you can infer common descent without knowing the details of the modification. The fused chromosome tells us nothing about what makes us different from chimps (chromosome fusion didn't do anything to the functional part of the chromosomes) - it is only evidence that we once shared a common ancestor. Some genetic markers can tell you something about two people's relatedness but nothing about why one has curly hair and the other has straight hair. You need to look at functional genes (or once-functional pseudogenes
What are those in humans and chimps? I don't know much about the specifics, but these look exactly like what you are looking for.
It has been pretty much non-scientific fare, so far... I know theres a lot of technical content to topics here, juvenissun, but even considering that, you are almost 100% absent of any detail in your replies. Why bother even logging in and pretending at a scientific background, if you're only going to forever play in the shallowest end of the proverbial pool? Discussions/debates are supposed to be about getting into the details of a topic. You need to challenge yourself more, intellectually... and start diving deeper. If that means you post less, well... lets just say I don't think anyone on either side of the discussion will regret not reading posts with content like the ones quoted, above.
The Devil is in the details is just a euphemism, you know.
