Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Answer to Message #29937.

Expand Messages
  • gluadys
    ... Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How then can you
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >
      > Gluadys: My question for you is this: Do you understand why Moran is
      > right and Axe is wrong?
      >
      >
      > Charles P: No, I do not understand why Moran is right and Axe is wrong.
      >


      Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How then can you possibly identify what evidence supports the theory and what evidence would not support it?





      >
      >Please explain. I hope that you can also include some empirical and
      > verifiable evidence to justify your opinions.
      >

      Explaining it fully and providing the evidence would effectively mean explaining the whole theory of evolution, what evidence is needed to support it and why, and cataloguing the massive amount of evidence that does support it.

      If you really want to know all this, sign up for a course on biological evolution.


      However, if you are prepared to start small, here are some initial ideas. Tell me if you agree that these are observed events.

      DNA is contained in every living cell.
      DNA is replicated in a parent cell and inherited by a daughter cell.
      DNA is not always replicated with absolute faithfulness.
      Therefore, replication sometimes produces alternate versions of a DNA sequence.
      Therefore, as a population of cells reproduces, the DNA sequences in the population of daughter cells vary from one individual to another.

      That's enough to start with. It is not enough yet to show why Moran is right and Axe is wrong. But if you see nothing problematical in this set of statements, we can move closer to that explanation in the next post.



      > Charles P: My answer to Message #29937 was to answer your question: "Do
      > you see the Shapiro quotes as supporting or antithetical to natural
      > selection? If neither, what is the reason to post them?" I liked the
      > quote from Axe: "But of course, as experimentalists we are very willing to
      > see the evidence that might prove us wrong". It sounds so much more
      > professional than: "I have an open mind; go ahead and put something in it".
      >

      That still doesn't explain why you saw it as an appropriate response. My question was about how you relate Shapiro's ideas to natural selection. Axe cannot answer that. Especially when he mentions neither Shapiro nor natural selection. It seems to me you depend too much on the rest of us being mindreaders. We need you to explain what is in your mind when you post something.

      Perhaps you can begin by answering the question above.
    • stewart8724
      Charles P: The 20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution asks us to accept on faith that dinosaurs morphed over time to become birds. James A Shapiro has
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Charles P: The 20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution asks us to
        accept on faith that dinosaurs morphed over time to become birds. James A
        Shapiro has 1,162 references to support natural genetic engineering.

        Stewart: The Theory of Evolution asks that you accept no such thing. Evolution is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over many generations. It does not submit that creatures metamorphose from one species into another. That you pretend to think that this is what evolution is, shows the weakness of your argument and the desperation of your cause.

        James A Shapiro:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 Living cells
        and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act
        and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation.
        They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing,
        and decision-making capabilities.


        Charles P: If you have some evidence showing that a magnet knows where the
        Polar Bears live, then please share that with us here on Origins Talk. If
        natural genetic engineering is impossible without a brain, then please
        share that with us here on Origins Talk.

        Stewart: Well if you place a needle near a magnet the needle will point north. This is certainly more compelling evidence that magnets know where the Polar Bears are, than what you or Shapiro have to show that cells are cognitive.
        I didn't say that genetic engineering was impossible without a brain, I said thinking, feeling, deliberate actions and consciousness were impossible without a brain. Try to keep up Charles, I realise it's difficult for you but try.


        Charles P: Please share with us the empirical and verifiable evidence for
        what you are saying.

        Stewart: Try having a conversation with your shoe. If you get a response I'll concede that something without a brain can think, and then I'll be forced to apologise to your shoe.

        Stewart (about camouflage is an example of design): But not an example of
        intentional design. (Unless you have evidence to the contrary).

        Charles P: I have no evidence that design can occur by random processes.
        Design always has a purpose or goal. (Unless you have evidence to the
        contrary).

        Stewart: So you agree that you are adopting a position not because there is evidence for it but because you fail to see the evidence for the contrary.
        Design does not always have a purpose or a goal and there is certainly no evidence that it does. You are simply reciting creationist jargon as though it were fact.


        Stewart: Do you mean by this, there are two possibilities for the existence
        of life, (1) Intentional design (2) Natural processes? If there weren't
        these two possibilities we wouldn't be having this discussion, so this is
        hardly earth shattering news.

        Charles P: This is hardly earth shattering news. Many people have
        believed this to be true for millennia and many people have believed this
        to be false for millennia. Now, in the 21st Century, we understand that
        biology is an information science. Information is another example of
        purposeful design with the goal of communication.

        Stewart: Information is an example of purposeful design only if you resort to evolution denial. For anyone else this is a meaningless, baseless and nonsensical assertion.


        Charles P: All I ask is that you accept the Shapiro idea of natural
        genetic engineering as axiomatic. You are doing the right thing now by
        asking questions like "why" and "how" and requesting that there be
        empirical and verifiable evidence. For reasons that I do not understand,
        many science writers hve never questioned the 20th Century version of The
        Theory of Evolution. Now is a good time to accept The Theory of Evolution
        as axiomatic and ask for empirical and verifiable answers to "why" and
        "how".

        Stewart: I'm asking the questions and you're failing to supply the answers so there's no chance of me accepting your explanation as axiomatic.
        Many scientists never question the theory of gravity any more either and for exactly the same reason, they understand it. Whether they learned about it in the 20th or the 21st century it is exactly the same principle, the truth doesn't depend on what time it is.


        Stewart: Design is not self evident. In the absence of humans there would
        be no concept of design, therefore design is reliant on someone to perceive
        it. Not self evident but subjective. ID creationism doesn't approach being
        self evident, and is absolutely not a universally accepted truth. If design
        is self evident, why are ID creationists congratulating themselves on
        finding it?

        Charles P: Please share your verifiable evidence for your claims.

        Stewart: I'll take that non-answer as an admission that you have no counterpoint to offer..


        Charles P: When you use the ad hominem fallacy, Stewart, you are telling
        us here on Origins Talk that you have no empirical and verifiable evidence
        to support your ideas.

        Stewart: Like you've just done there?


        Charles P: Stewart, your ad hominem fallacy statements are not scientific.

        Stewart: Yet they remain more so than your scientific statements.


        Charles P: Stewart, I will not discuss anything with you until you stop
        the ad hominem fallacy comments that have no place in science.

        Stewart: You never discuss anything anyway Charles. And what do you know of science, your opinions are borne of the rejection of science.
        If you don't want to respond to my comments you don't have to, of course it would break my heart but I think I might survive.

        Charles
        Spiders Have Eight (Well-Designed) Eyes:
        http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/halloween_creat065551.html%c2%a0 No matter
        how cool or well-designed the adaption, just say it evolved. It's a "really
        cool step in evolution." It's a "different pathway evolution has taken."
        The blind, aimless, purposeless process of natural selection gave spiders a
        "very extensive visual system." Turn in your paper and get an A.


        Stewart: Ah yes Evolution News, always the destination of choice for the balanced view. You'd be as well quoting Fox News.
        To say something is "well designed" doesn't suggest that it was the product of intelligence. If you believe that all design is the product of intelligence, you will have to find a word to replace 'design' in order to describe products or events that happen without intelligent supervision.


        Silk, the ancient material of the future:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqqWw3xkMzA%c2%a0 Fiorenzo Omenetto shares 20+
        astonishing new uses for silk, one of nature's most elegant materials -- in
        transmitting light, improving sustainability, adding strength and making
        medical leaps and bounds. On stage, he shows a few intriguing items made of
        the versatile stuff.


        Stewart: And what does this say about evolution?


        Evolution News And Views:  Fiorenzo Omenetto presented his work in a superb
        TED Talk that raised the audience to their feet without him once mentioning
        evolution. And he is getting grants from the NSF!


        Stewart: He's a material scientist so it's not entirely surprising that he didn't mention evolution. Did he mention divine creation? Did he mention gamma radiation? Did he mention geology? Did he mention aerodynamics?


        Charles P: (To Glaudys) No, I do not understand why Moran is right and Axe is wrong.
        Please explain. I hope that you can also include some empirical and
        verifiable evidence to justify your opinions.

        Stewart: Charles for your education – If Glaudys explains something to you it is evidence, it can be verified or refuted by you. All you have to do is compare what Glaudys says to all other evidence, if the other evidence supports G's explanation you can colour it verified. This sequence of events would constitute an empirically obtained conclusion

        Charles P: I know nothing about either science writer's ideas. I was
        hoping to continue discussing Shapiro's natural genetic engineering. Moran
        and Axe had some opinions about it, but no one presented any additional
        empirical and verifiable evidence to the contrary.

        Stewart: What difference would it have made if they had? You know nothing of their ideas so any evidence would be wasted on you.

        Charles P: My answer to Message #29937 was to answer your question: "Do
        you see the Shapiro quotes as supporting or antithetical to natural
        selection? If neither, what is the reason to post them?" I liked the
        quote from Axe: "But of course, as experimentalists we are very willing to
        see the evidence that might prove us wrong". It sounds so much more
        professional than: "I have an open mind; go ahead and put something in it".

        Stewart: This is an example of your talent for avoiding discussion. Glaudys asks very straightforward and succinct questions on the very subject you claim you want to discuss.
        Your response is to say that you were attracted by the appearance of a variation of a disingenuous and insincere statement that you peddle. End of discussion.


        P.S. Congratulations to all in USA on the right choice of Pres.



        ...
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        >
        > Gluadys: My question for you is this: Do you understand why Moran is
        > right and Axe is wrong?
        >
        > Charles P: No, I do not understand why Moran is right and Axe is wrong.
        > Please explain. I hope that you can also include some empirical and
        > verifiable evidence to justify your opinions.
        >
        > Charles P: I know nothing about either science writer's ideas. I was
        > hoping to continue discussing Shapiro's natural genetic engineering. Moran
        > and Axe had some opinions about it, but no one presented any additional
        > empirical and verifiable evidence to the contrary.
        >
        > Charles P: My answer to Message #29937 was to answer your question: "Do
        > you see the Shapiro quotes as supporting or antithetical to natural
        > selection? If neither, what is the reason to post them?" I liked the
        > quote from Axe: "But of course, as experimentalists we are very willing to
        > see the evidence that might prove us wrong". It sounds so much more
        > professional than: "I have an open mind; go ahead and put something in it".
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Charles Palm
        Gluadys: Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How othen can
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 8, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Gluadys: Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not
          understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How
          othen can you possibly identify what evidence supports the theory and what
          evidence would not support it?

          Charles P: No ad hominem fallacy statements, please. You are jumping to
          vast conclusions with half-vast data. I probably understand the basic
          theory of evolution better than you do, but that is not important. We can
          all learn something from each other. The empirical and verifiable evidence
          is the same for all of us; we only differ in our interpretations of that
          evidence. The description for the origin and diversity of life is about
          empirical and verifiable evidence. You have not presented any empirical
          and verifiable evidence that contradicts natural genetic engineering.

          Gluadys: Explaining it fully and providing the evidence would effectively
          mean explaining the whole theory of evolution, what evidence is needed to
          support it and why, and cataloguing the massive amount of evidence that
          does support it. If you really want to know all this, sign up for a course
          on biological evolution. However, if you are prepared to start small, here
          are some initial ideas. Tell me if you agree that these are observed
          events. DNA is contained in every living cell. DNA is replicated in a
          parent cell and inherited by a daughter cell. DNA is not always replicated
          with absolute faithfulness. Therefore, replication sometimes produces
          alternate versions of a DNA sequence. Therefore, as a population of cells
          reproduces, the DNA sequences in the population of daughter cells vary from
          one individual to another.

          Charles P: I agree that these are observed events. The discussion is
          supposed to be about natural genetic engineering. My guess is that you
          have not bothered to read the book. That's OK. You have a lot of other
          more important things to do, I am sure.

          Gluadys: That's enough to start with. It is not enough yet to show why
          Moran is right and Axe is wrong. But if you see nothing problematical in
          this set of statements, we can move closer to that explanation in the next
          post.

          Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe is
          wrong? Neither of them had anything to do with writing the book
          "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", by James A Shapiro.

          Gluadys: That still doesn't explain why you saw it as an appropriate
          response. My question was about how you relate Shapiro's ideas to natural
          selection. Axe cannot answer that. Especially when he mentions neither
          Shapiro nor natural selection. It seems to me you depend too much on the
          rest of us being mind readers. We need you to explain what is in your mind
          when you post something. Perhaps you can begin by answering the question
          above.

          Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 My
          Message #29,246 explains the nine basic principles of natural genetic
          engineering. Here are some important conclusions reached from 1,162
          references clearly documented in his book.

          1 Organisms behave purposefully.

          2 Organisms evolve themselves.

          3 Selection acts as a purifying but not a creative force.

          4 Organisms evolve by intentionally modifying their own DNA in response to
          environmental pressure.

          5 The genome is a read-write (RW) storage system with the organism itself
          deciding when and where to modify its DNA.

          Charles P: Beginning on page 66, Shapiro describes the mammalian adaptive
          immune system as an example of how the read-write storage system modifies
          its DNA. Much of the basic concept originated with Barbara McClintock, for
          which she received a Nobel Prize. She was a personal friend of Shapiro for
          the last 12 years of her life.

          Barbara McClintock:
          http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1983/mcclintock-lecture.pdf
          THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RESPONSES OF THE GENOME TO CHALLENGE. The purpose of
          this discussion has been to outline several simple experiments conducted in
          my laboratory that revealed how a genome may react to conditions for which
          it is unprepared, but to which it responds in a totally unexpected manner.

          Perry Marshall: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/video4/ Part 18. Error
          Corrections in DNA pt 2: Barbra McClintock’s Corn (Maize) Experiments.

          Charles P: I suggest that you find a copy of Shapiro's book in your local
          library and read it before we continue our discussions about natural
          genetic engineering.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • gluadys
          ... Not an ad hominem and not a fallacy. A conclusion from the evidence. ... If you did, you would understand Axe s error. ... OK, then. Let us start with a
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 9, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
            >
            > Gluadys: Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not
            > understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How
            > othen can you possibly identify what evidence supports the theory and what
            > evidence would not support it?
            >
            > Charles P: No ad hominem fallacy statements, please.
            >

            Not an ad hominem and not a fallacy. A conclusion from the evidence.



            >I probably understand the basic
            > theory of evolution better than you do, but that is not important.
            >

            If you did, you would understand Axe's error.


            > Gluadys: Explaining it fully and providing the evidence would effectively
            > mean explaining the whole theory of evolution, what evidence is needed to
            > support it and why, and cataloguing the massive amount of evidence that
            > does support it. If you really want to know all this, sign up for a course
            > on biological evolution.
            >
            >However, if you are prepared to start small, here
            > are some initial ideas. Tell me if you agree that these are observed
            > events.
            >DNA is contained in every living cell.
            >DNA is replicated in a
            > parent cell and inherited by a daughter cell.
            >DNA is not always replicated
            > with absolute faithfulness.
            >Therefore, replication sometimes produces
            > alternate versions of a DNA sequence.
            >Therefore, as a population of cells
            > reproduces, the DNA sequences in the population of daughter cells vary from
            > one individual to another.
            >
            > Charles P: I agree that these are observed events.
            >

            OK, then. Let us start with a single cell dividing and reproducing.
            Let us suppose one mutation in one gene as it is replicated.

            Call the daughter cells A and Z. A has exactly the same DNA sequence in this gene as its parent. Z has one difference in the DNA sequence of this gene from its parent cell and its sister cell.

            Suppose this scenario is played out again and again over 20 generations in both the A and the Z lineages.

            How many differences could exist between a 20th generation gene in the A lineage and the same 20th generation gene in the Z lineage?






            >
            >The discussion is
            > supposed to be about natural genetic engineering.
            >

            Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you see Shapiro's natural genetic engineering as supportine of natural selection or the reverse.

            I haven't seen you answer yet. Can't have a discussion unless you hold up your end of it.


            >
            > Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe is
            > wrong?
            >

            For your enlightenment, and that of other readers.



            >
            > Gluadys: That still doesn't explain why you saw it as an appropriate
            > response. My question was about how you relate Shapiro's ideas to natural
            > selection. Axe cannot answer that. Especially when he mentions neither
            > Shapiro nor natural selection. It seems to me you depend too much on the
            > rest of us being mind readers. We need you to explain what is in your mind
            > when you post something. Perhaps you can begin by answering the question
            > above.
            >
            > Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 My
            > Message #29,246 explains the nine basic principles of natural genetic
            > engineering.
            >

            So what? You are still not answering my question about natural genetic engineering.
          • Charles Palm
            Charles P: The discussion is supposed to be about natural genetic engineering. Gluadys: Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you see
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 10, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Charles P: The discussion is supposed to be about natural genetic
              engineering.

              Gluadys: Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you
              see Shapiro's natural genetic engineering as supporting of natural
              selection or the reverse. I haven't seen you answer yet. Can't have a
              discussion unless you hold up your end of it.

              Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 This
              was answered on August 11, 2012, and I apologize for repeating it so many
              times. James A Shapiro and natural genetic engineering and I support
              natural selection. Even the creationists support natural selection.

              Natural selection: http://creationwiki.org/Natural_selection It is an
              observable effect of nature and is considered a verifiable mechanism
              responsible for biological evolution.

              Natural selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Natural
              selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits
              become either more or less common in a population as a function of
              differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of
              evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin
              who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, what we now call
              selective breeding.

              Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28915 I do
              not know of anyone who has any empirical and verifiable evidence to the
              contrary.

              Charles P (July 5, 2012): I do believe in natural selection. However,
              because there is no list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution,
              both D R Lindberg and you seemed to think that I was disputing natural
              selection. Natural selection should be number one on the list so that we
              don't have to keep discussing the same old ideas over and over.

              Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe
              is wrong?

              Gluadys: For your enlightenment, and that of other readers.

              Charles P: I accept it as axiomatic. Please enlighten us with "why" and
              "how".

              Gluadys: So what? You are still not answering my question about natural
              genetic engineering.

              Natural genetic engineering:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 Selection
              operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
              that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
              microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
              conventional theories.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • gluadys
              ... No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can t repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing Mad Hatter to my
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 10, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                >
                > Charles P: The discussion is supposed to be about natural genetic
                > engineering.
                >
                > Gluadys: Well, the ball is in your court on that one. I asked whether you
                > see Shapiro's natural genetic engineering as supporting of natural
                > selection or the reverse. I haven't seen you answer yet. Can't have a
                > discussion unless you hold up your end of it.
                >
                > Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 This
                > was answered on August 11, 2012, and I apologize for repeating it so many
                > times.


                No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can't repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing Mad Hatter to my Alice.)



                >
                > James A Shapiro and natural genetic engineering and I support
                > natural selection. Even the creationists support natural selection.
                >


                If you and Shapiro "support" natural selection as creationists do, that is equivalent to not supporting natural selection at all. Most creationists I have conversed with don't understand how natural selection works, and they certainly don't consider it the driver of evolutionary change.



                >
                > Charles P (July 5, 2012):
                > because there is no list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution,
                > both D R Lindberg and you seemed to think that I was disputing natural
                > selection. Natural selection should be number one on the list so that we
                > don't have to keep discussing the same old ideas over and over.
                >

                Provided we are on the same page as to what natural selection is and what it can do ever time. Natural selection in a dinosaur family produced birds. Natural selection in a terrestrial arteriodactyl family produced whales.If you don't agree, then you do dispute natural selection.


                > Charles P: Why should we care about whether Moran is right and Axe
                > is wrong?
                >
                > Gluadys: For your enlightenment, and that of other readers.
                >
                > Charles P: I accept it as axiomatic. Please enlighten us with "why" and
                > "how".
                >


                I told you it would take time and patience. Part of the how was in the first section of my post about the A and Z lineages. When you respond to that, we can move on.


                >
                > Natural genetic engineering:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 Selection
                > operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
                > that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
                > microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
                > conventional theories.
                >
                >
                >

                Is this your view or Shapiro's view or Axe's view?

                I can tell you for sure that it is diametrically the opposite of the views of Carroll, Moran and all scientists who agree with the "conventional" theories.

                So your earlier comment that Shapiro, Carroll, Axe, etc. are all saying the same thing is dead wrong. In The Making of the Fittest, Carroll gives many examples of the creativity of natural selection.





                I can add a little to Stewart's responses here.

                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "stewart8724" <art1st@...> wrote:
                >
                > High altitude adaptations:
                > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this
                > research profile, we will explore these key questions:
                >
                > 1 What is the difference between acclimatization and adaptation?
                > (The first can be achieved by individuals and the second is acquired by the evolution of a population. An example would be that humans can acclimatise to live more comfortably in the desert by adjusting their activity and in turn their body temperature, thereby reducing water loss. Camels have evolved (adapted) to recycle water from their urine directly into their blood stream, eliminating water loss almost completely).
                >
                > 2 How are allele frequencies used to identify cases of recent natural
                > selection?
                > (I don't know)

                When allele frequencies deviate significantly from the Hardy-Weinberg averages, and/or from the average rate of neutral change, it is a signal that natural selection is active.


                >
                > 3 How can mathematical modeling be used to learn about evolutionary
                > history?
                > (I don't know)
                >

                Can't add much here either, but mathematical modelling can run several evolutionary scenarios on a computer and the computer results can then be compared to observational evidence. This would obviously tell scientists which mathematical scenario is nearest to the actual history of evolutionary change. And that is very helpful in understanding it.



                >
                > 4 How can changes in non-coding DNA lead to evolutionary change?
                > (I don't know)
                >

                Just as changes in coding DNA can be inherited, so can changes in non-coding DNA. Changes in coding DNA can lead directly to a change in a protein and its effect. Changes in non-coding DNA can lead to changes in when, where, how and whether a gene is expressed. This can have just as significant an effect on the traits exhibited by an organism as a direct change in a protein.

                Any inheritable change can propel evolutionary change through the effect of natural selection.

                Sean Carroll explains a lot of this with examples in The Making of the Fittest.
              • Charles Palm
                Gluadys: No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can t repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing Mad Hatter
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 11, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Gluadys: No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can't
                  repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing
                  Mad Hatter to my Alice.)

                  Charles P: Whatever. I am finished discussing Message #29,937. Thank you
                  for sharing your ideas. Please read Evolution: A View From The 21st
                  Century by James A Shapiro.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • stewart8724
                  ... Stewart: This is something I posted a couple of days ago. It makes me appear positively psychic. (This is an example of your talent for avoiding
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 11, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Gluadys: No, there is no answer to my question in that post. You can't
                    > repeat what you have never said in the first place (unless you are playing
                    > Mad Hatter to my Alice.)
                    >
                    > Charles P: Whatever. I am finished discussing Message #29,937. Thank you
                    > for sharing your ideas. Please read Evolution: A View From The 21st
                    > Century by James A Shapiro.
                    >

                    Stewart: This is something I posted a couple of days ago. It makes me appear positively psychic.
                    (This is an example of your talent for avoiding discussion. Glaudys asks very straightforward and succinct questions on the very subject you claim you want to discuss.
                    End of discussion).


                    .
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.