Back to Junk DNA (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, November 22, 2018, 22:42 (1971 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The gene is changed to an earlier form in the code.

dhw: Oh gosh, so the human genome existed in or even before the bacterial genome.

Under “Plant bloom”:
QUOTE: "Earlier this year, as reported in Cosmos, a US-led team suggested the answer lies in the ability of these plants to downsize their genomes, giving them the infrastructure and energy to spread rapidly. (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: Note my bold: downsizing DNA is devolution of DNA to advance plants. This research was noted in the previous entry here describing the genome shrinking in order to advance the flowering form.

dhw: Assuming common descent, I don’t see any problem in species discarding whatever parts of the inherited genome are not suitable or needed for their survival and/or improved chances of survival (= my idea of “junk”). (Yes, yes, I agree with Darwin and many others that survival is one key element in the advance of evolution.) And I still don’t buy the argument that a more complex genome (e.g. human compared to bacteria) entails subtraction and devolution.

DAVID: The only reason this discussion has gone on is your refusal to follow what is described: All that happens is the DNA gene is made shorter or reverted to a previous form perhaps with modification. Note the plant flowering article supports this. Taht can be described as devolution. And as far as I am concerned evolution does not enhance survival. the idea is a tautology.

dhw: I agree that the flower can be described as devolution, so please tell us if you now believe that the more complex human genome has devolved from the simpler bacterial genome. I have offered you an explanation of the flower’s devolution process, which you have ignored because for some reason you don’t think survival plays any role in the process of evolution. The tautology you are referring to is the argument that those organisms which are able to survive will survive (survival of the fittest), but it is not a tautology to say that the struggle to survive influences changes in organisms. What do you think motivates adaptation? And finally, would you please tell us why you have described this devolution theory as heretical?

Darwinists have considered it heretical. I don't, and don't know the mix up occurred.

DAVID: There is a review of Behe's book which is not yet officially published:
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/11/michael-behes-darwin-devolves-topples-foundational-cl...

DAVID’s comment: Until I get the book these obvious points about his theory are all I can provide. reading the entire article might help in understanding.

dhw: Thank you. This does indeed seem to emphasize the obvious points, e.g. about random mutations, which you and I both accept, and the fact that nobody knows how innovations are produced. It will be interesting to hear if/how he argues that humans devolved from bacteria.

I'll try and find out.