Complexity of gene codes (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 23:53 (5203 days ago) @ David Turell

David,-Emphasis Added
> >
> > [...] presuming Archaia haven't changed much, epigenetics was there from the beginning[/i]."
> > 
> Thank you for reviewing and summarizing my theory, but the intent of my comment re' Archaia staying the same, is different than your interpretation. We don't know what Archaia were like 3.6 bya. It is only by presuming they are unchanged that I can reach certain tentative conclusions about their condition then.
> -Your conclusion that life was made by design is anything but tentative! You've already admitted that you take this on faith. So please, lets not mince words here. -
> ...They do suggest that life has a built-in propensity to become complicated when given the right stimulus.
> -Again, if epigenetics are the cause of evolution, we will be able to demonstrate that evolution happens with no stimulus at all. ->
... Chance mutations are not worth much, as stated any times. 
> -Something tells me that cri du chat kids might serve as a counterexample to the sentence "Chance mutations are not worth much..." But I think you mean to aim not at chance mutations but at chance stimuli? -> And as a final point, I believe there are still layers of genome control within the organisms that are not yet discovered. Our knowledge of genome complexity will still grow a bit. I can't explain the Cambrian Explosion just on oxygen increase. The oxygen allowed the genome to perform and create new organs and organisms. Again, all my theory of the past 10 years, and the new discoveries seem to keep on confirming more and more of it.-My comp.bio brothers are working hard on this,

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"