|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/17/2007 11:48:00 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6772
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Scientists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, analyzed and compared genetic data from different species and found that certain retroviruses entered the genome about 40 million years ago and spread rapidly in primates about 25 million years ago.
But of course this isn't "novel" information because the retroviruses already existed. It makes perfect sense to ignore this catalyst of evolution, right? Right? [/id]
Yeah I love this:
The DNA remnants of these ancient "retroviruses," distant relatives of today's HIV, account for an estimated 8 percent of the human genetic code and may have enabled master genes that account for some of the differences between us and our chimpanzee relatives.
Master genes
Not all genes are created equal; the master genes can turn the others on and off, thus gaining control over genes related to cell division, DNA repair and programmed cell death. (This regulation of genes allows for tighter control of gene expression (i.e. which genes are turned on or off), which can account for the wide differences between humans and other apes, despite our very similar genetic codes.)
One such gene, called p53, has the job of coordinating the surveillance system that monitors the well-being of cells. It is so important in this job that when it fails, cancer is often the result—biologists even call it the "guardian of the genome."
Scientists had long wondered how genes such as p53 built their powerful empire over other genes. A new study detailed this week in the online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences implicates the ancient retroviruses as the force behind p53's rise to power.
First thing to note - this isn't an evolutionary process - an outside entity is presumed to have rapidly infused ancient genes with novel genetic information which radically modified that genome. You won't find any predictions for this in previous evolutionary literature.
The second thing to note, is that we have never observed a virus doing anything like this.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/18/2007 2:45:11 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
First thing to note - this isn't an evolutionary process - an outside entity is presumed to have rapidly infused ancient genes with novel genetic information which radically modified that genome. You won't find any predictions for this in previous evolutionary literature.
More evidence that UCD predicts nothing, it merely accommodates whatever evidence is there. If one prediction is falsified, proponents claim it predicts something else, if that's falsified, then they claim it predicts something else instead. They keep moving the goal posts. It's no wonder why UCD and other naturalistic philosophies censor critiques and opposing views from public schools and such (while brainwashing students with these naturalistic philosophies with tax dollars that don't even belong to them), such nonsense could never stand up to any such scrutiny. Science welcomes criticism and opposing views, UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are anti-scientific because they censor such stuff.
quote:
The second thing to note, is that we have never observed a virus doing anything like this.
It also begs the question, how did this alleged virus acquire this genetic information to begin with? No doubt, the secular community would have to resort to unsubstantiated speculation to explain such things away.
quote:
The results also call into question previous views that these repetitive sequences, or so-called junk-DNA, didn't code for anything or serve a particular purpose.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071114/sc_livescience/whatsinyourgenesancientparasites;_ylt=AmNJEACPYjyDi2j_miB3BmIPLBIF
quote:
In 2003, Scientific American explained that “the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes, Mattick says, ‘were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.’”
...
Science rejected the letter, but in 1998, long before the "junk-DNA" revolution was in full swing, William Dembski predicted function for non-coding "junk"-DNA based upon intelligent design:
But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/junk_dna_and_sciencestopping.html
Of course, naturalists now try to re - define the word junk to mean something that could have function. However, Darwin predicted in his book the origin of species that many organs would turn out to be useless or so close to useless to the point where it is not a factor to natural selection and that turned out to be wrong. Same is true for junk DNA, darwinists applied Darwins alleged predictions to junk dna and assumed junk dna was useless or so close to useless that it would not be a factor to natural selection. However, ID predicted all along that such DNA would generally be much more useful than darwinists had initially assumed. Turns out it was.
quote:
In 1995, Scientific American plainly expounded that under the Neo-Darwinian view, "[t]hese regions have traditionally been regarded as useless accumulations of material from millions of years of evolution." The view that non-coding DNA is "junk" has been adamantly promoted by TalkOrigins for years, as one leading contributor confidently asserted in 2001 that "[m]ost of human DNA is junk DNA." To be sure, over the years some rogue Darwinian biologists have bucked the consensus and promoted the view that non-coding DNA isn't mostly junk. But this doesn't change the fact that many leading Darwinists have had a long history of promoting the view that non-coding DNA is largely useless "junk." The comments above, and the quotes below document some examples of Darwinists asserting that non-coding DNA is thought to be "junk":
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1437
and of course, like usual, ID proponents turned out to be right and darwinists turned out to be wrong. Does this falsify UCD? Of course not, UCD is unfalsifiable, it predicts nothing. Committed naturalists simply resort to changing what evolution allegedly predicts and then playing word games with the term "junk dna" to make it mean something it never meant in the first place.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 11/18/2007 3:17:36 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/18/2007 9:53:19 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1497
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
Original: Jhudquote:
You won't find any predictions for this in previous evolutionary literature.
So? The TOE has predicted it all along. There just hasn’t been any need to mention that prediction until it was observed.
quote:
The second thing to note, is that we have never observed a virus doing anything like this.
Aw, come on Jack! Where is your faith? Just because it doesn’t happen often enough to have ever been observed doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. Don’t you understand science at all?????????
Edited to correct addressee. Sorry Jack.
< Message edited by unclemonkey -- 11/18/2007 5:30:11 PM >
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/18/2007 5:06:52 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Yeah, uncle's right. Who needs observation when you can postulate billions of years of random occurences to evolve anything. What a theory!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/18/2007 7:07:06 PM
|
|
|
Beckett
Posts: 197
Joined: 8/20/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
However, Darwin predicted in his book the origin of species that many organs would turn out to be useless or so close to useless to the point where it is not a factor to natural selection and that turned out to be wrong.
Thank goodness I have my appendix.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
“The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution” is a falsehood.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/19/2007 8:52:30 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Yes Beckett, God created you "fearfully and wonderfully made"!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/19/2007 6:45:29 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
First thing to note - this isn't an evolutionary process - an outside entity is presumed to have rapidly infused ancient genes with novel genetic information which radically modified that genome. You won't find any predictions for this in previous evolutionary literature.
Alteration of the genome by transposable elements is independent of fitness. ERV's can be neutral, beneficial, or deleterious. For instance, DQLTR3 is a known risk factor for Type I diabetes.
The theory of evolution never predicted that ERV's would not have function. What it does predict is how they are shared between species.
quote:
The second thing to note, is that we have never observed a virus doing anything like this.
Doing what, specifically?
HERV's from herpesvirus 6 has been observed. So there are examples of known human viral pathogens that are inserting into human germline cells.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 12:27:42 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
The theory of evolution never predicted that ERV's would not have function.
It never predicted they would. You're missing the point. This isn't an evolutionary process and was never originally proposed as a method of producing, "novel genetic information". It is merely accommodated into evolution despite the fact that it was never originally predicted by evolution. UCD merely accommodates any possible combination of evidence, it predicts nothing.
quote:
What it does predict is how they are shared between species.
There is no reason why it would predict any such thing.
quote:
Doing what, specifically?
What he quoted above.
quote:
So there are examples of known human viral pathogens that are inserting into human germline cells.
This isn't what's being argued.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 10:11:02 AM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 88
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
More evidence that UCD predicts nothing, it merely accommodates whatever evidence is there.
Then in the next breath you say:
quote:
If one prediction is falsified, proponents claim it predicts something else, if that's falsified, then they claim it predicts something else instead. They keep moving the goal posts.
If UCD predicts nothing, how can one of its predictions be falsified?
If on the other hand you believe that UCD makes potentially disconfirmable predictions but UCD proponents simply claim that it actually predicts something else in the event that the predictions are falsified, you are merely accusing evolutionists of dishonesty, rather than making a claim about the UCD hypothesis itself. That's a serious charge, and slanderous if you can't back it up with solid evidence.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 11:50:59 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
It never predicted they would. You're missing the point.
You are missing mine. ERV's are mutations. Evolution predicts that mutations, and by extension ERV's, can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Some ERV's are beneficial, some are neutral, and some are detrimental. What evolution does predict is that the process of mutation is independent of need.
quote:
This isn't an evolutionary process and was never originally proposed as a method of producing, "novel genetic information".
It is a process of mutation. How can it not produce novel genetic information?
quote:
It is merely accommodated into evolution despite the fact that it was never originally predicted by evolution. UCD merely accommodates any possible combination of evidence, it predicts nothing.
Evolution predicts that orthologous ERV's will fall into a nested hierarchy, and this is what is observed.
quote:
quote:
So there are examples of known human viral pathogens that are inserting into human germline cells.
This isn't what's being argued.
It is being argued that some unevidenced designer is inserting unobserved ERV's when there is a mundane and observed natural mechanism for inserting ERV's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 12:04:59 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RCC
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
More evidence that UCD predicts nothing, it merely accommodates whatever evidence is there.
Then in the next breath you say:
quote:
If one prediction is falsified, proponents claim it predicts something else, if that's falsified, then they claim it predicts something else instead. They keep moving the goal posts.
If UCD predicts nothing, how can one of its predictions be falsified?
I should have said, if one alleged prediction, because UCD does in fact predict nothing. Sorry, it was late at night and I forgot to add the word alleged in there.
quote:
If on the other hand you believe that UCD makes potentially disconfirmable predictions but UCD proponents simply claim that it actually predicts something else in the event that the predictions are falsified, you are merely accusing evolutionists of dishonesty, rather than making a claim about the UCD hypothesis itself. That's a serious charge, and slanderous if you can't back it up with solid evidence.
UCD makes no predictions, committed naturalists merely claim that it predicts whatever evidence we do see. IE: they claim that it predicts some arbitrary nested hierarchy and if we later find violations in one arbitrary hierarchy they modify it to form some other arbitrary nested hierarchy. An example is the case of bats. They used to think bats were more closely related to cows than horses and now they found that they are more genetically similar to horses than cows, a violation in the previous arbitrary nested hierarchy. So they adjust the arbitrary nested hierarchy to form some other arbitrary nested hierarchy. UCD makes no predictions, naturalists just claim that it predicts whatever evidence we do see and if that's falsified they change what UCD allegedly predicts to accommodate the newly discovered evidence.
Not all evolutionists are dishonest, just the ones that insist that their unsupported naturalistic philosophies (ie: UCD) should be taught in public schools at taxpayer expense while censoring opposing arguments and views (like ID). This kind of brainwashing is dishonest and it supports their overall dishonesty giving me good reason to believe that much of what they tell us is dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 12:13:50 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I should have said, if one alleged prediction, because UCD does in fact predict nothing. Sorry, it was late at night and I forgot to add the word alleged in there.
The function or non-function of ERV's is not predicted by UCD, that is correct. The PLACEMENT of ERV's is.
The theory of evolution states quite clearly that mutations, including ERVs, are random with respect to fitness. What does ID predict?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 12:19:06 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
ERV's are mutations.
No. ERV = Endogenous Retrovirus. ERV != mutation. If you mean ERV's modify the genome that they infect, then ok.
quote:
Evolution predicts that mutations, and by extension ERV's, can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Some ERV's are beneficial, some are neutral, and some are detrimental. What evolution does predict is that the process of mutation is independent of need.
There is no reason for UCD to make any such prediction. Even if some mutations are beneficial this is not evidence for UCD.
quote:
It is a process of mutation. How can it not produce novel genetic information?
It is never observed to produce new IC structures independently of existing IC structures. As evidence for this, the closest example you can come up with is a toxin, caused by the breakdown of already existing IC structures, that's not even an IC structure and kills the organism that produced it. If you can come up with a better example, you certainly would. It does not produce any IC structures like the flagellum.
quote:
Evolution predicts that orthologous ERV's will fall into a nested hierarchy, and this is what is observed.
No, it does not.
quote:
It is being argued that some unevidenced designer is inserting unobserved ERV's when there is a mundane and observed natural mechanism for inserting ERV's.
It is being argued that ERV's can cause new novel structures (like the ones quoted above) despite the fact that there is no evidence they ever do any such things.
There is evidence for design, we see highly complex IC systems and whenever we observe such things originate, they always originate as a product of design. We do not have to know the designer to be able to detect design (or even how the designer created something), if we saw an ancient pyramid and we didn't know the civilization / people that designed it (or how they designed it) we wouldn't assume that it was the product of unguided natural cause and not design.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 12:23:12 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
The theory of evolution states quite clearly that mutations, including ERVs, are random with respect to fitness.
Even if true, there is no reason this should be evidence for UCD (why, because someone claims it is?).
quote:
What does ID predict?
ID claims that life is the product of design because it has IC systems and IC systems are only observed to come about through design. It predicts that life should never be observed to emerge independently of design. This is easily falsifiable and it flows from the premise, it makes sense. If IC systems are only observed to be the product of design then it is reasonable to say that IC systems are only the product of design. UCD arbitrarily says something like, "well, because the sky is blue, UCD somehow predicts that the sky is blue. If the sky were purple instead, this would falsify UCD." IE: there is no reason for UCD to make the predictions that evolutionists claim it makes. Life has certain characteristics that are only observed to be the product of design so it is reasonable to conclude that life was the product of design. This is falsifiable, demonstrate (don't speculate) that life can emerge independently of design.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 11/20/2007 12:33:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 12:44:02 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
No. ERV = Endogenous Retrovirus. ERV != mutation. If you mean ERV's modify the genome that they infect, then ok.
A mutation is a modification of the genome. ERV's modify the genome, hence they are mutations.
The manner in which ERV's insert is independent of need. Therefore, ERV's will be beneficial, neutral, and detrimental. This is what is observed.
What does ID predict?
quote:
quote:
Evolution predicts that mutations, and by extension ERV's, can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Some ERV's are beneficial, some are neutral, and some are detrimental. What evolution does predict is that the process of mutation is independent of need.
There is no reason for UCD to make any such prediction. Even if some mutations are beneficial this is not evidence for UCD.
We are talking about the mechanism of mutation which is separate from UCD. You are conflating terms again.
Mutations are observed to be independent of need. This has been the observation ever since the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment.
quote:
It is never observed to produce new IC structures independently of existing IC structures.
We aren't talking about IC structures. We are talking about novel information.
quote:
quote:
Evolution predicts that orthologous ERV's will fall into a nested hierarchy, and this is what is observed.
No, it does not.
Yes it does.
quote:
It is being argued that some unevidenced designer is inserting unobserved ERV's when there is a mundane and observed natural mechanism for inserting ERV's.
It is being argued that ERV's can cause new novel structures (like the ones quoted above) despite the fact that there is no evidence they ever do any such things.
The only one talking about novel STRUCTURES is you. Beckett and Jhud did not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 12:45:17 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
ID claims that life is the product of design because it has IC systems and IC systems are only observed to come about through design. It predicts that life should never be observed to emerge independently of design. This is easily falsifiable and it flows from the premise, it makes sense. If IC systems are only observed to be the product of design then it is reasonable to say that IC systems are only the product of design. UCD arbitrarily says something like, "well, because the sky is blue, UCD somehow predicts that the sky is blue. If the sky were purple instead, this would falsify UCD." IE: there is no reason for UCD to make the predictions that evolutionists claim it makes. Life has certain characteristics that are only observed to be the product of design so it is reasonable to conclude that life was the product of design. This is falsifiable, demonstrate (don't speculate) that life can emerge independently of design.
What does ID predict about ERV's? And why?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 12:57:20 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
The manner in which ERV's insert is independent of need. Therefore, ERV's will be beneficial, neutral, and detrimental. This is what is observed.
I have no problems with this. This is not something that UCD should predict.
quote:
What does ID predict?
Already stated.
quote:
We are talking about the mechanism of mutation which is separate from UCD. You are conflating terms again.
I am not arguing the mechanism of mutation, I am arguing evidence for UCD.
quote:
Mutations are observed to be independent of need. This has been the observation ever since the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment.
I am not arguing this, I am saying that this is not evidence for UCD.
quote:
We aren't talking about IC structures. We are talking about novel information.
You asked me what ID predicts and I answered.
quote:
Yes it does.
There is no reason for it to.
quote:
The only one talking about novel STRUCTURES is you. Beckett and Jhud did not.
Wouldn't novel information code for novel structures?
quote:
What does ID predict about ERV's? And why?
If ERV's exhibit characteristics that are only observed to emerge as a result of design (I'm not saying they do) then ID predicts that ERV's should never be observed to originate independently of design. The reason is because such characteristics are only observed to emerge from design.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 1:53:18 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
The manner in which ERV's insert is independent of need. Therefore, ERV's will be beneficial, neutral, and detrimental. This is what is observed.
I have no problems with this. This is not something that UCD should predict.
What? UCD doesn't predict the orbit of Mars, either. Is that a problem?
UCD stands for univerisal common descent. It is a subcategory of the larger theory, the theory of evolution.
The part of the theory that predicts the function and non-function of ERV's is not UCD. It is the theory of mutation, which states quite clearly that mutations are random (i.e. independent) with respect to fitness. This is contrasted by Lamarckian evolution and Lysenkoism where mutations are a product of need.
quote:
quote:
We are talking about the mechanism of mutation which is separate from UCD. You are conflating terms again.
I am not arguing the mechanism of mutation, I am arguing evidence for UCD.
You are confusing the mechanism of mutation with the mechanism of inheritance.
Here is rundown of a previous post.
quote:
ME: The theory of evolution never predicted that ERV's would not have function.
YOU: It never predicted they would. You're missing the point. This isn't an evolutionary process and was never originally proposed as a method of producing, "novel genetic information". It is merely accommodated into evolution despite the fact that it was never originally predicted by evolution. UCD merely accommodates any possible combination of evidence, it predicts nothing.
I was talking about whether or not evolution predicted that ERV's would have function. I stated that evolution makes the same prediction as it does for every other mutation. You then trot in UCD where it doesn't belong.
quote:
ME: What does ID predict with respect to ERV's?
If ERV's exhibit characteristics that are only observed to emerge as a result of design (I'm not saying they do) then ID predicts that ERV's should never be observed to originate independently of design. The reason is because such characteristics are only observed to emerge from design.
ERV's exhibit characteristics found in retroviruses. Retroviruses insert into the host genome. At times they do not insert properly resulting in an endogenized retrovirus. If this occurs in a germ line cell the resulting offspring will have this endogenized retrovirus in every cell in it's body, and can possibly pass it on to it's offspring.
No designer needed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What's in Your Genes? - 11/20/2007 7:37:09 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 88
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
UCD makes no predictions, committed naturalists merely claim that it predicts whatever evidence we do see. IE: they claim that it predicts some arbitrary nested hierarchy
No, they don't, Betta. No one claims that UCD predicts a specific nested hierarchy, e.g. one in which bats are more closely related to horses than cows.
UCD logically entails that there exists one true phylogenetic tree of life. It follows in turn that species should be classifiable objectively in a unique nested hierarchy, groups within groups like the quotation boxes on this forum, on the basis of their inheritable features. This is exactly what we have found so far, and it was the basis of Linnaeus's classification scheme, long before Darwin. Neither chemical elements, elementary particles, nor humanly designed objects such as cars can be objectively classified in an NH, but the millions of known species can be. On the other hand, e.g. if birds, flying squirrels, flying fish, and flies had feathers, and only those groups had feathers, the NH would fail and UCD along with it.
Our understanding of the "true" nested hierarchy is subject to revision when new evidence warrants it, but it's still an objective, unique NH, as predicted by UCD.
ERVs further confirm the pattern, i.e., so far as we know, they are inherited in a way that confirms the phylogenetic tree.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
