@Ionus,
I can sorta see where Ionus got his "DNA bullcrap when he was stating that chickens and T Rex share the same DNA. Sean Carroll and JAck Horner have proposed an extension of Ken Millers thesis that "we dont create new genes in evolution, we just ask existing ones to do new things"
On a "discovery show" Carroll was exhorting his audience to accept that dino and chicken DNA are the same because of "inferred homologous functions". It is sort of a
"Trust me, I know that T Rex DNA and chicken DNA are the same because we can create chicken "teeth" by messing with that section of a chickens genome that has its teeth genes "turned off"
Perhaps this is where Ionus got his authoritative sounding statement. . The difference is that, for CArroll and Horner, Its a working hypothesis that has yet no evidence in fact and , no matter what we can do by turning "fossil genes" on or off, we will never know what the genome of a TRex is about unless we actually are able to sequence one from some fossil. There are many other animals seemingly unrelated to each other who develop homolgous functional groups that ariase from adaptation mutation or some other means. (We dont know which is correct)
So, Im gonna give Ionus some ability to draw conclusions from watching a TV show that purports to be good science. What Ionus is unaware of, is that the controversy involved in genomics and proteomics is in the detail that is waay over his pay grade. Im not saying that hes ineducable, merely ignorant of the real controversy in genomics and so he will accept the latest and most entertaining dinosaur tale , and the hell with the controversies that try to keep Carroll and Horner in check.
All science is self correcting and sooner or later, the truth will be ferreted out. Unfortunately, the desire for media to make all science accessible to us all, has resulted in us getting overly simplified explanations of things that are not as obviously simple and elegant as we want them to be.
For example, single nucleotide polymorphs and "Hopeful monsters" , the results of new gene and chromosome formation stare us in the face and complicate what otherwise sounds like a very entertaining and simple story of the fact that maybe genes are just turned off and on and all else is just minor mutation. However, we have the glaring example of new genes in the human genome, where the entire no 2 chromosome is actually a fused form of chromosomes 2A and 2B of the genome of pongid apes (Mostly seen in chimps). That why humans have 1 less chromosome pair than do chimps. This is new DNA by recombination.
We(humans) were , perhaps , a "hopeful monster" that came down from the trees and develop by adaptation. (The no 2 chromosome in humans contains the very genes (along with genes on chromosome 16) that are conveniently those that reflect our skull/ vertebral couple. This couple , the migration of the chondyle , allows us to walk upright and (maybe) grow a BIG BRAIN. However , all this detailed understanding of human/pongid connections (by DNA) sre clearly able to be sequenced and tested for function because pongid apes are contemporary with humans and share the divergent products of adaptive evolution.
Many times, when we learn stuff from TV shows, remember, the science youre getting is there mostly to sell you products (the show is merely a delivery trick for the vast amount of commercials that we get on basic cable). Thats what I say whenever I watch a show on "Mathturbation" or whats popularly known as "String theory" . We ashould always try to go a bit deeper and not get all tied up in TV how science.
