Axil, I think you mentioned this before.
The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it
simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.
For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is
irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know
that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.
People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that
chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from
our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume
Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to
dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian
Evolution. That is circular reasoning.
The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called "Junk DNA" are
actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During
microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes.
The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not
Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They
think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian
Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
By tinkering with this junk DNA, genetics experts have reawakened long
suppressed dinosaur-like traits in a modified chicken.
Cheers: Axil
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote:
Genetics experts stopped calling the non-coding regions 'junk' some time
ago. They might say something like 'what used to be called junk DNA'. I
have been wondering whether certain aspects of the information that defines an
organism is not contained in the DNA, but instead certain specific regions of
the DNA are able to 'tune into' information from previous generations of the
organism which have similar sequences.
Nigel
On 28/12/2012 01:38, David Roberson wrote:
It is funny when I hear of "junk DNA" as described by the genetics
experts. Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just
admitting that it is not understood? Reminds me of the old theory about the
amount of one's brain that is being used. I just wish people would lay out the
facts that they know and not judge the unknowns. I guess some would call LENR
junk physics!
Dave
