Huxter
>WHY would similar morphology affect the aptterns of synapomorphic >mutations
in areas of the genome that have NOTHING to do with morphology? >e.g., the
beta globin gene cluster; intergenic regions; introns' etc...
Bertvan:
Good question, and the best argument for common ancestry of which I am aware.
Similarity in "junk" DNA is consistent with symbiosis and horizontal transfer
as a source of novel mutations. Darwinists have called this part of the
genome "junk" and claimed it served no purpose. Denton disagrees. Since
nothing else in living organisms has turned out to be "junk", I'm inclined to
agree with Denton. Perhaps we will be able to answer lots of questions when
we discover what function this "junk" performs.
Huxter:
> And on >what do you base the claim that "...the genome
>itself has some unexplained ability to organize itself in similar,
>meaningful, purposeful, designs and patterns."
>Does it? How do you know this?
Bertvan:
Mere speculations-and not even my speculations. I agree with Steve that
"chance" is a term we use to cover phenomenon for which we do not know the
cause. Darwinists seem to have been content to sit on "chance" and look no
further. I am merely a fascinated observer of those scientists such as
Kauffman, Denton, Margulis, Spetner, Shapiro and the panspermia people who
are interested in looking beyond "chance". I'm sure there are others out
there that I haven't heard of.
bertvan