Wait. What does this story remind us of? Oh yes, recently a writer at The Atlantic went so far as to express doubt about the claim of a Darwin-in-the-schools lobbyist that everyone needs to buy into their approach to evolution if we want to understand superbugs.
So different sets of genes can result in identical looking birds? This is getting as complicated as the butterflies.
“Often, researchers construct a phylogeny using a single gene. This can, however, give an inaccurate picture of the relationship between species — and can incorrectly place them.” So the industrious team studied “used up to 4065 genes from each termite species to construct the phylogeny.” Good for them. But it raises the question, why—in the age of Big Gene—doesn’t everyone do that, instead of loudly proclaiming an evolutionary history based on a handful of genes? One is much less inclined to dismiss the evidence of thousands than a handful.
Apparently, it’s the geneticists’ “worst nightmare.”
And none from the other. And they may show no abnormalities. It’s amazing how much the human genome has learned in recent years. 😉
Researchers: It is not, as is generally believed, hydrogen bonds which bind together the two sides of the DNA structure. Instead, water is the key.
It sounds as though these researchers want to quietly abandon Darwinian randomness in favour of a structuralist approach to the unfolding of life but — understandably — do not want to hear from an army of Darwinian orcs.
The entire history of Kettlewell’s Peppered Moth experiment is littered with problems: doctored photographs, wrong assumptions and slim evidence, followed by genetic analysis revealing that the protein exons coding for color were not changed, but, rather, a transposon (non-random) was inserted in an intron (“junk DNA”). And now there’s this paper. It seems that the […]
Take THAT! genetic determinism and blow it out your ear! The local animal welfare society has tons of live cats people can learn to like (or tolerate 😉 ).
If the Weismann barrier is broken, that’s barbarians at the gates of textbook Darwinism, no? It turns out, all sorts of sources can contribute to inheritance.
Why are people so uncomfortable with the idea that they are NOT ruled by their genes?
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.
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.
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.”
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.