Proposing new Topics ettiquette

I was just wondering, a recently closed post left some issues hanging. Mark24 proposed a new topic, closely in line with one of the issues I wanted to have resolved.I would very much like to discuss this issue whilst it is still on everyone's minds.Is it considered bad form to 'hijack' a PNT by proposing a new one that takes into account the admin's advice? I'd like to reply to Mark24's PNT with suggestions on how the topic could be expanded on, but, wisely, I don't have permission to do that.I think it might be bad ettiquette, so if it is, how long is it considered good form before posting a 'rival' PNT? I know mark24 is still about (he's online as I type), so he isn't a fled user, but he may have lost interest or the like.A final question: Do we have PM type system? I just see an email system.

Since we try to avoid multiple threads at one time on the same topic we would usually only promote one of them.Since I have gotten involved with Mark and he seems to have left this one why don't we do something different.You can add here your suggestion for a more complete OP and I will add it in to the PNT and, if ok, promote it.Generally, you need some degree of patience to discuss here. Some people only have limited time to appear here and you may have to wait for them.

No, there is no PM system. We've considered it in the past but it's never gathered too much support. There are a blue skizillion IM system out there and if you wish to be available for off-board discussions I guess you could email anyone you wish to communicate with regularly and give them your IM address. I know several of the other Admins contact me that way on occasion.

---

As you know, replies to PNTs are by originator or admins only.You may wish to input your thoughts about Marks PNT at the "Considerations..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

If you are talking about Mark's PNT on Morphological & Genetic Similarities.....Continuation Thread for Randman, long before I saw Mark's PNT I approved and opened Randman's Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?. I assume these both come from the same discussion. If there is a significant difference in the proposed subject, maybe someone could make that clear.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Thanks Ned. I understand the patience thing here. Not everyone gets permission from their managers to debate on forums whilst at work The background here, which I'm sure you are aware of, is in relation to Evolution is a Religious Issue, which diverged from its topic and started discussing DNA and morphology. I made the following post Message 268 in reference to it.Here is the position held by randman: Analogy timeLet's imagine we need to convey a secret message to Mr Bush. The message is "Lookout! The terrorists are coming". To do this we use a code book that Mr Bush has a copy of. The number '6' would refer Mr Bush to the message "Lookout! The terrorists are coming". In order to arrive at this number we use a collection of three digits and find the sum of them. For example:
213: 2+1+3 = 6
222: 2+2+2 = 6
312: 3+1+2 = 6
114: 6And so on. We can see clearly here that there are many ways of arriving at the same message.Why is the analogy applicableOK, replace 'message' with protien. So instead of saying "Lookout! The terrorists are coming", we are now saying "Cytochrome c". Instead of using digits, we use A,G,C or T (or rather the chemicals they represent), in three-long 'codons'. Instead of only needing one codon we need 104.Each of the 104 codons refers to an amino acid. Different codons can code for the same amino acid (1+1+4 gives the same result as 2+2+2), and so there are many many different ways of coding for any given protien.Some figuresThere are twenty amino acids that go towards making protiens. There are 4³, 63, different combinations for the codons. The upshot of all this is between one through six different ways of making any given amino acid...which means there are an awful lot of different ways of making a 104 amino acid long protien.A picture is worth a thousand wordsLook at this diagram. It shows the entire DNA string for cytochrome c in humans, and cytochrome c in mice. There are 78 codons which are identical. Is this a strange occurance?How many different ways can these 78 codons have been? Look at the diagram there - 1.3 x 10³³.MorphologyThe way that Cytochrome C is made has no bearing on morphology. Indeed - human cytochrome c can be genetically engineered into yeast cells and they will function identically. Indeed, how the amino acids are put together to form the protien is made is irrelevant to the morphology of the creature. I can say this because it has no relevance to the morphology of the protien.The pointThere is no reason a Creator would code Cytochrome C in Chimpanzees in an identical manner to humans, and code it slightly differently in Rhesus monkeys (one amino acid difference). The fossil record shows us that the general order that life evolved through was fish->amphibian->reptile->mammal (a simplification of course). There is no reason whatsoever for a Creator to code Cytochrome C in similar ways for mammals, less similar for reptiles, less similar again for amphibians and less similar again to fish.In conclusion
The cytochrome c protien could be coded the same way in humans as it is in herring, and dramatically different in Chimpanzees. Whilst a Creator might have set this up (for no known reason), it seems more parsomonius to assume this is the result of heriditary and divergance from common ancestry.And this is just considering one protien. We haven't considered this study which looks at over 500 genes, and arrives at the same conclusions. We haven't considered broken genes such as the broken vitamin C gene in primates.Creationists like to use statistics to prove that evolution is so unlikely as to be impossible. The chances of mice and men having the same 78 codons for one protien are approaching astronomical levels. The chances that almost all creatures have the appropriate (for evolutionary predictions) codons is approaching incredulity unless common ancestory is the cause. And this is just ONE protien...this relationship can be found in hundreds of these things.Admin
As alluded to at the beginning - I was typing this whilst at work. I have a feeling its going to feel a bit disjointed and chaotic whilst reading through it as a result of that. I hoped to iron most of it out, but its probably going to remain a little bumpy. Thanks for the help, I've never proposed a new topic before so bare with me

Thanks everyone - I posted the above without reading the other Admin posts. I think Mark and randman's posts are generally theme around convergent evolution so I thought I'd attack things from a different angle Thanks again.

4³ = ?

Heh - good point. Lord only knows why I put 63. It is, of course, 64.

I'm sorry but now that I review more I see that the convergence thread is the place.Perhaps you should post it there or refer to threads where it has been discussed before.I'm afraid that it is too advanced for those who aren't already aware of it though so it is not likely to do much good.

Cheers Ned, I'll look into posting it over there.