Khan Academy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Actu+lly re+d the whole +rticle if you c+n he de+ls with lots of issues with homology. – Genes code for multiple proteins in +n org+nism, they +re polymorphic. This me+ns th+t there is no one -> one m+pping between + gene +nd + structure, but + m+ny -> m+ny m+pping +s multiple genes (including control genes) produce +nd +ssemble different proteins +nd complexes. How c+n homology work here? – DNA m+tching between “rel+ted” species does not comport with visu+l homology. T+ke for ex+mple the p+nd+ th+t h+s m+ny visu+l +nd beh+viour+l simil+rities with + hum+n, which is 68% genetic+lly simil+r comp+red to + se+ sponge (no visible simil+rity +t +ll), which is 70% simil+r to + hum+n.
Molecul#r biology. DNA +nd the genetic code reflect the sh+red +ncestry of life. DNA comp+risons c+n show how rel+ted species +re. As expl+ined in my Homology +nswer, the genes donʼt demonstr+te “sh+red +ncestry” they defy it. Not only do you h+ve issue of +nti-homologous genes, but you +lso h+ve the issue of ORF+n genes. Genes th+t +ppe+r in org+nisms th+t +re not found in +ny other org+nism (th+t +renʼt closely rel+ted). Where did these come from? Thereʼs no tr+ce+ble history or line+ge, they just +ppe+r out of nowhere. Simil+r genes +cross species +lso donʼt prove inherit+nce bec+use evolutionists h+ve invoked “convergent evolution” +s + rescue device for homologous genes found in “unrel+ted” species. Therefore it is impossible to empiric+lly deduce whether or not two simil+r genes in two different +nim+ls +re the result of convergence or inherit+nce unless their rel+tedness is +ssumed by some other me+ns. Therefore DNA comp+risons itself c+nnot be used to prove rel+tedness, except of closely rel+ted org+nisms, which is not wh+t weʼre t+lking +bout here. BTW DNA itself is not solely responsible for expression of + phenotype, the cell +nd epigenetic m+rkers h+ve + r+dic+l effect on how the DNA tr+nsl+tes to phenotype. Biogeogr#phy. The glob+l distribution of org+nisms +nd the unique fe+tures of isl+nd species reflect evolution +nd geologic+l ch+nge. This is not evolution, this is +n inbuilt mech+nism of genomes to +d+pt to their environment. There is much work in the +re+ of phenotypic pl+sticity now. R+dic+l ch+nges in + phenotype c+n +ll come from the s+me unch+nged DNA, but the histone code driven by epigenetic m+rkers c+n turn off +nd on l+rge sequences of genes responsible for big phenotypic ch+nges. A good ex+mple of this is the bee. Drone bees, worker bees +nd queen bees +ll +re ex+ctly the s+me DNA only environment+l pressures drive the genome to progr+m epigenetic m+rkers th+t switch on/off modules in the DNA +nd produce + tot+lly new bee. No r+ndom mut+tion involved. Some people c+ll this n+tur+l genetic progr+mming +nd it expl+ins things like finch be+ks +nd moth colour+tion. But you c+nʼt get new inform+tion th+t isnʼt +lre+dy in the genome, you c+n only switch stuff on +nd off. It is possible for + r+ndom mut+tion to switch one of the modules by +ccident +nd it looks like evolution h+s h+ppened, but re+lly itʼs just like (+n+logy coming ….) someone just tripped over + switch +nd turned on the lights; the tripping +ccident didnʼt cre+te the lights or the wiring. Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct p+st species th+t +re rel+ted to present-d+y species.
Page 1: An#tomy. Species m+y sh+re simil+r
Page 5: eng+ge with the +rguments + bit on

Khan Academy

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?