Darwin in the Genome

Say, Dr Borger, does your theory acknowledge common descent? If not, how do you explain the fossil record and the taxonomic hierarchy in nature?

Archetypes. I see... In your exchanges with Dr Page & others your problem with common descent seem to be limited in the evolution of phyla. So I assume that you don't have any problems with evolution within phyla?[example] Termites, my animals, evolved from wood-eating semisocial cockroaches, within Arthropoda; and insects & arachnids (spiders) evolved from the arthropod archetype. The archetype was specially created some time around the Ediacaran age/before the Cambrian explosion.Does that follow from your theory?

I'll play by your rules. Okay, so the arthropod archetype existed sometime in the early Cambrian, then it evolved into the ancestors of insects, crustaceans, arachnids, etc. The ancestor of insects branched off into many orders, one became the cockroaches, and then among the cockroaches, one took the step to become termites.Does that scenario follow your theory?

So, by following your theory, I have a scenario where the arthropod archetype existed in the Cambrian with a multipurpose genome preadapted to make every innovation within the phylum Arthropoda; the classes Crustacea, Arachnida, Myriapoda, Trilobita, Insecta & others branched off from the arthropod archetype by reducing the variation within the multipurpose genome to achieve current diversity. This process is directed by creaton particles (sensu Borger, but I am still skeptical about this part).Back to the wood-eaters. A commonly held hypothesis about termite phylogeny is that they evolved from some ancient wood-eating cockroach. If your theory be true, then we should expect the cockroach genome to include information to 'build' termites, since your version of evolution is the reduction of possibilities from the multipurpose genome.What do you think?

quote:

---

Darwin was the first to discover the MPG, but his extrapolation of microbe-to-man evolution is completely, entirely unwarranted because the phenomena are unequal. (Unless you assume an uncommitted MPG of the original microbe we all evolved from). That Darwin’s extrapolation on variation in Galapagos finches to support ‘microbe-to-man-evolution’ is unwarranted is also demonstrated by observations that ‘his’ finches are still able to interbreed (Science, 26 April 2001). Thus, they are still the same MPG.

---

I assume you know that Galapagos finches are not the only organisms Darwin studied? His works suggest that he also studied pigeons, cattle, sheep, dogs, barnacles, Scottish firs, ants, cuckoos, lungfish, platypus, marine fossils, horses, wild flowers, orchids, coral reefs, etc....

I get the suspicion that Dr Borger reads only book reviews. He argues by using Dr Caporale's book and said it demolishes NDT. Then he said he does not have that book. He said Darwin extrapolated finches to 'molecules to man', and as I remember it Darwin said very little about the finches; he was even talking about the Galapagos mockingbirds. I know what's in that book. I translated it into Bahasa Indonesia.