| lestatdark said:
Our current metabolic needs are dictated by what's defined in our DNA, that's the common rule. Metabolical pathways on the other hand are the ones that influentiate the DNA expression. Say for example that you're in lack of glucose in your blood. Usually you would ingest sugar or anything containing suger and your body would break down the components to make glucose, but what if you cannot access sugar? Your body then begins a metabolical process called glycogenolysis, in which it breaks down excess glycogen in your adipose tissue to make the necessary glucose. This metabolical process is triggered by a rising level of the hormones glucagon and epinephrine, which via signal transduction it promotes the expression of the proteins necessary for that metabolical process.
If our metabolical needs change throughout the generations, then the DNA adapts to the new pathways that those metabolical needs produce, "saving" the required protein codes in our DNA. This is a very morose and long process, usually taking dozen of thousands of years and many hundred generations to produce such an effect in our DNA (which has been proved via bacterial studies since metabolism is one of the most primal mechanisms in any cell/tissue/organ/living being).
In the case of sex-linked inheritance, the probability between offspring of a gene dissapearing or re-apperaring is counted as factor in the same generation. So if the probability is 1/8, the chance for genotype doesn't code for that gene is 1/572. If it's the case of complete dissapearence (which would be an extreme case, as that would require nothing short of the deletion of the entire gene sequence, it's promoters and every mechanism to replicate that gene - remember, DNA is conservative and the DNA polymerase has the ability to proof-read and repair the gap in DNA) then the chance is about 1/2x10^8 (the value of meiosis recombination rate via crossover from both the parental and maternal strands which can repair the missing gene).
When I talk about regeneration of the DNA, I mean a complete restoration to the initial point of the strands, as if your cells were in their early division forms (as if you had still the body of a child). That's something that the DNA machinery can't accomplish, given the pile up of mutations and loss of function from the repair systems over each division.
I'm sorry if I explained myself wrong. I didn't mean wasted time as in it was pointless, I mean that it takes me quite a lot to reply since I'm also working and this thread has taken up all of my scarce free time. That's how much attention i'm putting to it, since usually I wouldn't even bother. The problem with the link is not the detail, lacking or not, is the approach to the scientific method. Once again, as a scientist you're ethically bound to principles that you should never break. One of those principles is to never manipulate your data to fit any theory that suits your need. Data and results are empiric. If that data doesn't prove you're right or doesn't fit the model you were theorizing then you correct that model and admit that you were wrong. You do not go looking for small tidbits that could probably support your model if you changed this and that data, that's wrong, unscientific, unethical, it hinders scientific debate and progress.
That's why articles such as that one would never be allowed in any scientific debate, not because it's linked to creationism, but because it's tampered and takes huge leaps in judgment to fit some of the data into a very theorized model which has no scientific basis other than what's written in the bible. If the same article was made by Wiccan advocates (I'm a Wiccan) and used the same leaps of judgment, incorrect scientific procedures and was based on models written in a Book of Shadows or in ancient Celtic scripts then I would still call out on it and it would still cause the same reaction within me.
|
