DNA, PRO or CON for Evolution

[Milken]

DNA, is it a Thumbs Up or Down for Evolution?

[Sisyphus]

Maybe you should clarify the question?

[Milken]

Do the workings of DNA support Evolution? Explain

[bascule]

Do the workings of DNA support Evolution?

 

Yes

 

Explain

 

Already done (extensively) here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9484

[Milken]

The article basically shows how similiar our chromosome bandings and Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERV) are located in the exact same place of the genome, odds 1/6billion, fascinating how similar we're designed. = )

 

One issue I wonder about is how similarity can take such an important role when the exact same gene can produce different results. For example, in man and primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones that make us look different. It doesn't really seem to make a definitive statement for either side.

[jeskill]

The article basically shows how similiar our chromosome bandings and Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERV) are located in the exact same place of the genome' date=' odds 1/6billion, fascinating how similar we're designed. = )

 

One issue I wonder about is how similarity can take such an important role when the exact same gene can produce different results. For example, in man and primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones that make us look different. It doesn't really seem to make a definitive statement for either side.[/quote']

 

 

I think your statement "the genes we have in common are the same ones that make us look different" is either misleading or wrong.

We have genes that code for the same FUNCTION, but the nucleotide sequence (GGATTCGGGTT etc) of those genes are different. For example, every eukaryotic organism has ribosomes, which translate protein, but the nucleotide sequence is different in each organism.

 

I'm sure you know that genes have alleles -- different forms of those genes. Sometimes the different forms allow the gene to do the same job in different environments. I've used this example before, but different forms of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase in fish work at different temperatures. Fish that live in cold waters have enzymes that work best in cold temperatures and vice versa.

 

My point: chimps and humans have a lot of similar genes in that they have the same function, but the nucleotide sequences are slightly different and the genes may work optimally in different environments (environment could also mean the internal environment of the body).

 

Sorry, editing for one last point: Bascule, that was a really good thread you linked to.

[Milken]

I think your statement "the genes we have in common are the same ones that make us look different" is either misleading or wrong.

We have genes that code for the same FUNCTION' date=' but the nucleotide sequence (GGATTCGGGTT etc) of those genes are different. For example, every eukaryotic organism has ribosomes, which translate protein, but the nucleotide sequence is different in each organism.

 

I'm sure you know that genes have alleles -- different forms of those genes. Sometimes the different forms allow the gene to do the same job in different environments. I've used this example before, but different forms of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase in fish work at different temperatures. Fish that live in cold waters have enzymes that work best in cold temperatures and vice versa.

 

My point: chimps and humans have a lot of similar genes in that they have the same function, but the nucleotide sequences are slightly different and the genes may work optimally in different environments (environment could also mean the internal environment of the body).

 

Sorry, editing for one last point: Bascule, that was a really good thread you linked to.[/quote']

 

Did you actually disagree? Are you saying the 98-99 percent of our genes in common are only in function and the slightly different nuc seq account for all the differeneces in apes/humans?

 

I've read about experiments where scientists exchanging similar genes in organisms that typically produce very different kinds(i guess alleles) of the same thing. When they exchange the genes the animals produce they're normal function, not the other animals. It seems contradictory, but I'm honestly not well versed in genetics as I am in other fields.

 

It's odd because before I knew anything about C or E (ID wasn't really "out" yet) or the theological implications. People would mention how animals are so similar and I never saw how it "proved" common descent anymore than it "proves" we're made from the same stuff. That's something I have never really seen through.

 

I believe the articel, which was VERY interesting and provided great visuals.

[bascule]

Milken, the problem with the "God used the same design" argument is the molecular clock: we see random drift over time which is perfectly explicable by an evolutionary argument but makes no sense from a design perspective.

 

You might also wonder why we have an appendix, why our retinas are on backwards when squid and so forth have them on "correctly" (so they don't easily detach/rip and there's no blind spot), why birds can pass air continuously through their lungs while we're stuck with a lousy inhale/exhale cycle, etc.

 

If your really asking if DNA evidence is "pro or con" for evolution it's overwhelmingly pro. I'd like to challenge you to give one example where DNA evidence counters an evolutionary argument. So far all your arguments seem to be "Well that evidence can used for either an evolutionist or creationist argument!"

[Milken]

Milken, the problem with the "God used the same design" argument is the molecular clock: we see random drift over time which is perfectly explicable by an evolutionary argument but makes no sense from a design perspective.

 

Please give me an extremely bias evolutionary source for the molecular clock. I haven't seen anything on it that makes me feel good about it as a "real scientific clock". The "clock" as of now disturbs me because so far it's admittedly not accurate and has to be cross referenced with the fossil record(right?). Could you explain how much drift you mean?

 

You might also wonder why we have an appendix' date=' why our retinas are on backwards when squid and so forth have them on "correctly" (so they don't easily detach/rip and there's no blind spot), why birds can pass air continuously through their lungs while we're stuck with a lousy inhale/exhale cycle, etc.[/quote']

 

Design isn't neccessary for me if Evolution is true it won't really affect me (to clear things up). Appendix - we weren't originally meat eaters retina - it's inverted to allow the oxygen needs of the vertebrate eye, give me another animal, our blind spots don't mean anything, we have two eyes, I'll need a better example than a squid it doesn't count. Birds need the high energy production for there lifestyle, may I add, very short life.

 

 

If your really asking if DNA evidence is "pro or con" for evolution it's overwhelmingly pro. I'd like to challenge you to give one example where DNA evidence counters an evolutionary argument. So far all your arguments seem to be "Well that evidence can used for either an evolutionist or creationist argument!"

 

It's not really intended to be an arguement, just an observation. It's not an argument for either side, personally, unless you prove "how". How does homology prove common descent? I agree it infers it just as much as it infers common design.

 

On to the challenge (quite a good one) are you asking me to make a common design arguement to directly counter common descent? Is the evolution arguement for DNA more than homology?

[jeskill]

Did you actually disagree? Are you saying the 98-99 percent of our genes in common are only in function and the slightly different nuc seq account for all the differeneces in apes/humans?

 

I've read about experiments where scientists exchanging similar genes in organisms that typically produce very different kinds(i guess alleles) of the same thing. When they exchange the genes the animals produce they're normal function' date=' not the other animals. It seems contradictory, but I'm honestly not well versed in genetics as I am in other fields.

 

It's odd because before I knew anything about C or E (ID wasn't really "out" yet) or the theological implications. People would mention how animals are so similar and I never saw how it "proved" common descent anymore than it "proves" we're made from the same stuff. That's something I have never really seen through.

 

I believe the articel, which was VERY interesting and provided great visuals.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure what you mean by, "did you actually disagree?". DNA does provide evidence for evolution. The differences between chimps and humans are caused by differences at the nucleotide level. I'm not a chimp/human expert, but here's part of an article I read that is pretty clear:

 

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

 

The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

 

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

 

The researchers discovered that a few classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, production of sperm and cellular transport of electrically charged molecules called ions. Researchers suspect the rapid evolution of these genes may have contributed to the special characteristics of primates, but further studies are needed to explore the possibilities.

 

The genomic analyses also showed that humans and chimps appear to have accumulated more potentially deleterious mutations in their genomes over the course of evolution than have mice, rats and other rodents. While such mutations can cause diseases that may erode a species' overall fitness, they may have also made primates more adaptable to rapid environmental changes and enabled them to achieve unique evolutionary adaptations, researchers said.

 

Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. In addition, there are another 5 million sites that differ because of an insertion or deletion in one of the lineages, along with a much smaller number of chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.

 

The last paragraph is particularly interesting. 35 million DNA base pairs is a lot of leeway. Especially when you consider that sometimes a protein's function can change from just one amino acid difference (which is coded by 3 nucleotides) or even one nucleotide difference.

 

For example, remember when I was talking about "opsins" in the fossil thread? Those are proteins that sense light in the eye. Well, one amino acid change can cause an opsin to change from sensing ultraviolet light to violet light (we don't have these opsins but birds do). As birds use UV or violet light to choose mates or find food, these small changes can have huge implications.

 

I don't really understand your second paragraph. Could you find the article and post a link to it? Also, what is C and E?

[Milken]

I'm not sure what you mean by' date=' "did you actually disagree?". DNA does provide evidence for evolution. The differences between chimps and humans are caused by differences at the nucleotide level. I'm not a chimp/human expert, but here's part of an article I read that is pretty clear:

 

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

 

 

 

The last paragraph is particularly interesting. 35 million DNA base pairs is a lot of leeway. Especially when you consider that sometimes a protein's function can change from just one amino acid difference (which is coded by 3 nucleotides) or even one nucleotide difference.

 

For example, remember when I was talking about "opsins" in the fossil thread? Those are proteins that sense light in the eye. Well, one amino acid change can cause an opsin to change from sensing ultraviolet light to violet light (we don't have these opsins but birds do). As birds use UV or violet light to choose mates or find food, these small changes can have huge implications.

 

I don't really understand your second paragraph. Could you find the article and post a link to it? Also, what is C and E?[/quote']

 

Bascule, no response, anyway?

C - Creation E - Evolution

 

Sorry, I was purposely too general in the 2nd paragraph. What I'm saying is, the exact same gene can give you different results. For example the eye, in mice, an octopus, and a fruit fly. The gene is so similar it can be exchanged between the three and the animals develop there eye as usual. Without going into detail, the three animals have very different look/type/funtioning eyes. In relationship to human/primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones responsible for making us different.

Is homology the main "support" for evolution?

[ecoli]

Bascule' date=' no response, anyway?

C - Creation E - Evolution

 

Sorry, I was purposely too general in the 2nd paragraph. What I'm saying is, the exact same gene can give you different results. For example the eye, in mice, an octopus, and a fruit fly. The gene is so similar it can be exchanged between the three and the animals develop there eye as usual. Without going into detail, the three animals have very different look/type/funtioning eyes. In relationship to human/primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones responsible for making us different.

Is homology the main "support" for evolution?[/quote']

 

you have a source for this?

[jeskill]

Bascule' date=' no response, anyway?

C - Creation E - Evolution

 

Sorry, I was purposely too general in the 2nd paragraph. What I'm saying is, the exact same gene can give you different results. For example the eye, in mice, an octopus, and a fruit fly. The gene is so similar it can be exchanged between the three and the animals develop there eye as usual. Without going into detail, the three animals have very different look/type/funtioning eyes. In relationship to human/primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones responsible for making us different.

Is homology the main "support" for evolution?[/quote']

 

 

"The gene" that codes for the eye? There are many genes that code for different traits in the eye. Which gene in particular are you talking about? I, too, would like to see a source.

 

There is a lot of different types of evidence to support evolution, as I'm sure you already know. Homology is but one piece.

[Milken]

If I can find the source, how would it affect your current thinking?

[Sisyphus]

Wouldn't it make sense that the same gene does different things in different organisms? Genes in large part are responsible for the production of particular chemicals, i.e., proteins. Surely it makes perfect evolutionary sense that different organisms would sometimes use the same proteins in different ways?

[jeskill]

If I can find the source, how would it affect your current thinking?

 

 

If you presented the source, I would be able to read it and better understand what your argument is.

[zyncod]

Sorry, I was purposely too general in the 2nd paragraph. What I'm saying is, the exact same gene can give you different results. For example the eye, in mice, an octopus, and a fruit fly. The gene is so similar it can be exchanged between the three and the animals develop there eye as usual. Without going into detail, the three animals have very different look/type/funtioning eyes. In relationship to human/primates, the genes we have in common are the same ones responsible for making us different.

Is homology the main "support" for evolution?

 

Actually, you're talking about a homeobox gene. That doesn't specifically code for a mammalian eye. It simply codes for the further development of optical tissue. Which would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but not from a design standpoint.

[Milken]

Actually, you're talking about a homeobox gene. That doesn't specifically code for a mammalian eye. It simply codes for the further development of optical tissue. Which would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but not from a design standpoint.

 

How does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, I'm confused? Homebox, norm of reaction, and another I can't remember are properties of genes that promote stasis. The eye statement wasn't applying specifically to mammalian eyes but to the overall concept.

 

TO EVERYONE:

 

The basic topic, the causes of similarity:

 

"A more common explanation nowadays is that the homologies come from similar genes. In other words, the reason two features are homologous in two differen animals would be that they're programmed by similar genes in the embryo. But it turns out this doesn't work very well, either. We know some cases where you have similar featrues that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of caes whre we have similar genes that give rise to very different featrues.

 

I'll give you an example: eyes. There's a gene that's similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there's a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What's more striking is if you look at a fruit fly's eye -- a compoud eye with multiple facets- it's totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.

 

In fact, it's so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would. The genes are that similar. " -Wells interview, (conept from his work Icons of Evolution)

 

That's the best I could do for a souce, sorry.

 

Conclusion: similar genes or developmental pathways can be said to be the mechanism for homology. Do I need to explain developmental pathways?

 

What's frustrating is reading scientific journals/studies mostly have sequence analysis as DNA proof of evidence, as if to say, "Look at how similar these are, they obviously both came from the same single celled bacteria". It's an extrapolation of a good observation. The observation is good but the conclusion is just a hypothesis. The worst part is how intelligent(I assume) the scientist running the studies are.

 

Is homology the only DNA "proof" for evolution?

[Milken]

Actually, you're talking about a homeobox gene. That doesn't specifically code for a mammalian eye. It simply codes for the further development of optical tissue. Which would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but not from a design standpoint.

 

How does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, I'm confused? Homebox, norm of reaction, and another I can't remember are properties of genes that promote stasis. The eye statement wasn't applying specifically to mammalian eyes but to the overall concept.

 

TO EVERYONE:

 

The basic topic, the causes of similarity:

 

"A more common explanation nowadays is that the homologies come from similar genes. In other words, the reason two features are homologous in two differen animals would be that they're programmed by similar genes in the embryo. But it turns out this doesn't work very well, either. We know some cases where you have similar featrues that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of caes whre we have similar genes that give rise to very different featrues.

 

I'll give you an example: eyes. There's a gene that's similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there's a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What's more striking is if you look at a fruit fly's eye -- a compoud eye with multiple facets- it's totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.

 

In fact, it's so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would. The genes are that similar. " -Wells interview, (conept from his work Icons of Evolution)

 

That's the best I could do for a souce, sorry.

 

Conclusion: similar genes or developmental pathways can be said to be the mechanism for homology. Do I need to explain developmental pathways?

 

What's frustrating is reading scientific journals/studies mostly have sequence analysis as DNA proof of evidence, as if to say, "Look at how similar these are, they obviously both came from the same single celled bacteria". It's an extrapolation of a good observation. The observation is good but the conclusion is just a hypothesis. The worst part is how intelligent(I assume) the scientist running the studies are.

 

Is homology the only DNA "proof" for evolution?

[Halucigenia]

How does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, I'm confused?

 

The development of eyes could be controlled by the same type of gene that is present in many different lines of organisms without the resulting structures being homologous.

 

The point is that these genes control development of the different types of eyes by co-opting different types of tissue in those different organisms. This demonstrates that the eye evolved many different times over the history of life on Earth.

 

I think that this would be very difficult to explain from the design perspective, why would a designer, use the same processes on different types of tissue, rather than using the same types each time.

 

The mammalian eye and the octopus/squid eye are great examples of this (why does the squid not count? ). This convergent evolution shows how a very similar result can be obtained from different anatomical tissues and communicate with the brain using completely different circuitry, but be controlled by an ancient conserved process - the homeobox DNA sequence.

 

The fact that the resulting structure is similar is not an homology as the organisms in question do not have a common ancestor with a common structure for the eye, but it shows that the different types eyes converged towards a similar structure, giving similar functionality, independently.

[mattbimbo]

all the molecules within a single cell are being constantly remade. it is the ability to make these molecules that persists within the cell rather than any molecule. this ultimately depends on nucleic acids, but neither do nucleic acids persist. every time a cell divides its nucleic acid molecules are remade. what is inherited over the long-term are particular sequences, the genes, within nucleic acids. only genes provide the continuity needed for the evolution of life. but genes don't have to be embodied in nucleic acids do they? in his early career Pauling worked on antibodies, and by 1940 with Delbruck proposed that biological specificity resulted from the detailed complementariness of two molecules. by 1948 he wrote about the gene, "If the structure that serves as a template consists of, say, two parts, which are themselves complementary in structure, then each of these parts can serve as the mold for the production of a replica of the other part, and the complex of two complementary parts thus can serve as the mold for the production of duplicates of itself" of course 5 years later the mold was discovered to be dna, but when the gene is described this way it is easy to see that nucleic acid is not a universal molecule. indeed as argued by AG Cairns-Smith, nucleic acids may well have evolved from a pool of self-complementary molecules, in his book Genetic Takeover, he goes on to explain in broad evolutionary concepts why nucleic acids may have succeeded over other types of molecules. in this book however he doesn't consider whether some other molecule might come along and takeover from nucleic acids.

[Immunologist]

I don't think this question is worth any place in a scientific forum as DNA can not support anything else than evolution if we speak of science.

 

At the moment you put the word "god", "design" or whatever of the sort, you do not speak of science (no more you are speaking of intelligence if you speak of religion).

 

Your question is DEEPLY BAD as DNA is a molecule and does not support or infers anything.

 

But it is used in evolutionary processes if it is what you wanted to know. Now your question is: Are the changes made to DNA supporting evolution? YES.

 

Plate some pure, DNA-sequenced bacterias on an agar plate with antibiotics and look at evolution happening with the emergence of resistant bacterias. Now take their DNA, sequence it, figure out what was the mutation and understand how it affected the proteins so that they no more die of the antibiotics. Wanna test evolution further more? Sequence the DNA of all those ones who did not survive: you end up with an enormous amount of loosers with all different mutations that did not work!

 

Please think rational with everything in its proper position: DNA has no will.

[jeskill]

How does it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint' date=' I'm confused? Homebox, norm of reaction, and another I can't remember are properties of genes that promote stasis. The eye statement wasn't applying specifically to mammalian eyes but to the overall concept.

 

TO EVERYONE:

 

The basic topic, the causes of similarity:

 

"A more common explanation nowadays is that the homologies come from similar genes. In other words, the reason two features are homologous in two differen animals would be that they're programmed by similar genes in the embryo. But it turns out this doesn't work very well, either. We know some cases where you have similar featrues that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of caes whre we have similar genes that give rise to very different featrues.

 

I'll give you an example: eyes. There's a gene that's similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there's a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What's more striking is if you look at a fruit fly's eye -- a compoud eye with multiple facets- it's totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.

 

In fact, it's so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would. The genes are that similar. " -Wells interview, (conept from his work Icons of Evolution)

 

That's the best I could do for a souce, sorry.

 

Conclusion: similar genes or developmental pathways can be said to be the mechanism for homology. Do I need to explain developmental pathways?

 

What's frustrating is reading scientific journals/studies mostly have sequence analysis as DNA proof of evidence, as if to say, "Look at how similar these are, they obviously both came from the same single celled bacteria". It's an extrapolation of a good observation. The observation is good but the conclusion is just a hypothesis. The worst part is how intelligent(I assume) the scientist running the studies are.

 

Is homology the only DNA "proof" for evolution?[/quote']

 

I feel like you are tackling a bunch of issues so I'm breaking this up into points:

 

1) Homology is when a specific trait is structurally similar in different organisms due to descent from a common ancestor, right? So, yes, by definition, homology is evidence that evolution occurred. In mutation accumulation experiments, it is possible to verify in "real-time" that homologous traits do occur.

 

2) Is homology the only evidence for evolution? Of course not! But I'm pretty sure you already knew that, so I'm wondering why you bothered to ask that question. If you really didn't know that, then I suggest you do a google search for the various kinds of evidence that support evolution. I've already mentioned one (mutation accumulation experiments).

 

3) I believe your conclusion that,

similar genes or developmental pathways can be said to be the mechanism for homology.

is logically incorrect.

 

Similar genes are homologous if they are derived from a common ancestor. There are many mechanisms that "cause" homology in DNA sequences: divergent natural selection of different organisms, gene duplication events coupled with mutation accumulation, mutations that change the coding in areas that don't affect function, genetic drift, etc. Likewise, developmental pathways are homologous if they derive from a common ancestor.

 

But it's illogical to say that developmental pathways and similar genes cause homology. Because, as Halucigenia said, they could be similar because of convergent evolution, not because they are homologous. (Convergent traits are "analogous".) Does that make sense?

 

4) Now, if your question is, why are sequences assumed to be homologous if we don't have direct evidence? That's an interesting question. As stated before, we have physical real-time evidence that all the "mechanisms" of evolution occur - i.e. mutations, migration, natural selection and genetic drift. We also have physical evidence that homology occurs.

 

So, we use the information derived from the physical evidence to make assumptions about how evolution is occuring. For example, we could say that every single type of change that could occur will occur with equal frequency (e.g. point mutations, transversions, transitions etc.) Alternatively, we could say that certain changes occur more frequently than others (e.g. G tends to be mistaken for C more often then A). Then we make a model that fits the assumptions. Then we compare our sequences using that model.

 

I'm not going to get into all the different ways you can model evolutionary history and thereby answer the question, is the trait homologous? If you're interested, I suggest you look up "parsimony" and "maximum-likelihood" to start you off.

 

5) My last point is that I don't think that anyone ever says, "this tree is proof that these organisms are homologous". What they say is, "this tree shows poor/strong evidence that these organisms are derived from the same ancestor. Moreover, other evidence supports this hypothesis as well, blah blah blah.

[Milken]

The development of eyes could be controlled by the same type of gene that is present in many different lines of organisms without the resulting structures being homologous.

 

Not the same type, basically the exact same type. Part of Neo-Darwinism suggests homology is due to the genes. Your statement seems to contradict this, help me out.

 

The point is that these genes control development of the different types of eyes by co-opting different types of tissue in those different organisms. This demonstrates that the eye evolved many different times over the history of life on Earth.

 

The statement says the same gene not genes (maybe a mistake). This co-opting involves more than just tissue right. So' date=' the same gene co-opts different eye structures in different animals. How does that "prove" the eye evolved? If your statement is true, it proves that the a single gene does not have autonomy over a trait. Which suggests DNA has an overall blueprint already in mind, that makes the tissue form properly.

 

I think that this would be very difficult to explain from the design perspective, why would a designer, use the same processes on different types of tissue, rather than using the same types each time.

 

It's difficult to detect the exact motives of a designer, I never met'em. In everyday life the same 'general' process is often used to make different things via different materials. Not a big deal to me. . .

 

The mammalian eye and the octopus/squid eye are great examples of this (why does the squid not count? ). This convergent evolution shows how a very similar result can be obtained from different anatomical tissues and communicate with the brain using completely different circuitry' date=' but be controlled by an ancient conserved process - the homeobox DNA sequence.

 

The fact that the resulting structure is similar is not an homology as the organisms in question do not have a common ancestor with a common structure for the eye, but it shows that the different types eyes converged towards a similar structure, giving similar functionality, independently.[/quote']

 

Did I say the octopus didn't count? Convergent evolution, the eyes are only similar in that they see, and controlled by the same interchangeable gene, doesn't show much change.

 

Since they don't have a common ancestor the genes shouldn't be so similar, unless genes do not necc account for similarity.

[Milken]

I don't think this question is worth any place in a scientific forum as DNA can not support anything else than evolution if we speak of science.

 

At the moment you put the word "god"' date=' "design" or whatever of the sort, you do not speak of science (no more you are speaking of intelligence if you speak of religion).

 

Your question is DEEPLY BAD as DNA is a molecule and does not support or infers anything.

 

But it is used in evolutionary processes if it is what you wanted to know. Now your question is: Are the changes made to DNA supporting evolution? YES.

 

Plate some pure, DNA-sequenced bacterias on an agar plate with antibiotics and look at evolution happening with the emergence of resistant bacterias. Now take their DNA, sequence it, figure out what was the mutation and understand how it affected the proteins so that they no more die of the antibiotics. Wanna test evolution further more? Sequence the DNA of all those ones who did not survive: you end up with an enormous amount of loosers with all different mutations that did not work!

 

Please think rational with everything in its proper position: DNA has no will.[/quote']

 

The name of the thread has to do with Evolution, not Design, God, Creationism. That's your issue, not mine. It's agreed that the immune system is very adaptable and can react quickly, thus keeping us alive from all kinds of little knick knacks. The way it can make anitbodies of things it has never experienced is truly amazing. With your extensive background, I'm sure you're aware that kind of change is not prevalent through the anatomical genome.