Their cheatin’ hearts, that’s how. Pigs ran wild and look what happened. Funny how a genome can be sort of a river like that. And they’re all still pigs.
Genetics
Eric Holloway: Are transgenic monkeys – with some human genes – partly human?
Holloway: Of course, the real question is, what is the dividing line between animals and humans? At least, it is not memory or processing speed.
Will setting proteins to music help us understand them?
Re proteins: “They have their own language, and we don’t know how it works,” he says. “We don’t know what makes a silk protein a silk protein or what patterns reflect the functions found in an enzyme. We don’t know the code.”
A single set of genes drives pufferfish spines, mouse hair, and chicken feathers
If so, this set of genes got started a very long time ago and shows an admirable ability to switch from producing, say, lawnmowers to cars to cell phones. Yet it got started back when life was supposed to be simple and primitive, remember? It would seem that something back then was not simple and primitive.
Direct experimental falsification of Darwinism?
Scientists believed that mutations occurring only in germ cells were responsible for any heritable genetic changes. Schumacher and his team now challenge this assertion. (The Selfish Gene was heard to sob uncontrollably in the background.)
Behe vindicated by goldfish? But of course!
We see devolution all the time with unintelligent causes. Animals gnaw a hole in the bottom of a jug of water and they get some water but the rest is wasted. They destroy the feedhouse door trying to get into the feed because they don’t know how to use the doorhandle. They do get fed but the feed is scattered and much is wasted. *That’s what an unintelligent cause is typically like.* Put another way, the animals won’t learn to use the doorhandle or the jug cap. But just to survive and reproduce, they might not need to.
Epigenetics silences cancer-linked genes from 400 million years ago
The main thing we’re learning these days is that epigenetics is much more important than we used to think. Which means that purely Darwinian evolution must be much less so.
Researchers: Body plan evolution not so simple as once thought
The Hox genes are not the big answer many thought.
Nobody went downhill faster than DNA
Remember when everything you ever were or would be was
in your DNA? Now it’s proteins.
Can one apply the “Goldilocks Principle” of fine-tuning to DNA structure?
From what these researchers report, yes, one can definitely apply the principle. But then one must accept that biology shows evidence of design. “Just right” is rarely an accident.
The same genes code for legs as for tentacles
The folks at Nature will be back to us when they come up with a no-design story.
Why describing DNA as “software” doesn’t really work
Check out Science Uprising 3. In contemporary culture, we are asked to believe – in an impressive break with observed reality – that the code of life wrote itself: … mainstream studies are funded, some perhaps with tax money, on why so many people don’t “believe in” evolution (as the creation story of materialism). The […]
What if there is no genetics apart from epigenetics?
Talbott: Not that the gene sequences are themselves mutated in the usual sense. Rather, the researchers found that various epigenetic modifications in the hippocampus alter the way the genes work (Weaver et al. 2004).
Researchers: Gene translation “much more complex than previously thought”
We keep learning about a variety of life forms that they are “more complex than expected.” So why do we keep expecting them to be simpler? How be we turn it around and say: Such-and-so features layers on layers of complexity, as we expected.
Supposed junk DNA serves as microlens for condensing light
A new study, we are told,”turns our picture of the nucleus upside down”.