686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + Line 26:
Line 28: + + + +
no edit summary
Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and bacteria from genome sequence of Thermotoga maritima. PMID: 10360571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] This work shows lateral gene transfer. Many scientists view this as one of the multiple mechanisms that explain the addition of genetic material to the cell, not to mention the introduction of viral DNA into a host cell. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)
: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)
A small point that should be attended to: "data" is plural, so the last sentence should read "the data are..." rather than "the data is..."--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)
A small point that should be attended to: "data" is plural, so the last sentence should read "the data are..." rather than "the data is..."--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Another point to add is that all theories are considered unproven. It is redundant to place unproven before theory in the first paragraph of this article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The statement ''The scientific data regarding mutations causing the significant changes necessary for macroevolution is extremely damaging to the macroevolutionary position'' is completely false. PAX6 is a wonderful example of a gene found across species that encodes for sensory organs. Slight mutations of this gene account for the diversity of optical organs found at the phyla levels.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)