Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Common design would explain it just fine.

That isn't necessarily so, so...no.

Yes, I agree that Taq's graph shows common design. Biut I do not accept Taq's interpretation (or yours) of the graph. That interpretation is, as I said, not necessarily so. You are interpreting the graph under an evolutionary assumption. I am not.I agree that the graph as shown could support an evolutionary view. But it also could just as easily support common design.I should point out too, that the graph as Taq posted is quite cherry picked. That section is in no way the whole of the data, and the rest of the data by the UCSC is not as nicely lined up as Taq tries to show.I would also question Taq's statement that "There is very little, if any, sequence in introns that has sequence specific function." This may hinge on specifically which 'sequence'(s) are meant, but the latest research is showing that introns have much function..... just as ID predicted.

First, your question is again assuming evolution in your use of the statement "sequence conservation"But to answer the rest of the question,... a designer using the same elements for construction, but arranging the expression, timing, and/or location of the same elements in different ways to produce different products is a common feature of design.So though exons (generally the protein coding part) create the main elements that make up cells, those can be and generally are ubiquitous among differeing forms of life. It is like if someone were constructing multiple buildings, they would likely use similar elements (wood, concrete, metal, copper wiring, nails, glue, etc) among all the different constructed objects.Yet, the expression, timing, location, amount, arrangement of those same elements would be varied across different forms of life (for biology) or construction (differing buildings). At least for biology, introns are a contributing part of the information that leads to differing outcomes. That would explain why in a design scenario, exons are more uniform across different species and introns are not as uniform. I didn't say that. As you next quote me saying, I agree that evolution could/would produce such a pattern as seen in the graph. What I am merely pointing out that besides evolution, common design also can explain it. Yes, I went there. But your screenshot (perhaps innocently) conveniently shows the correlations you expressed. But on that site, taking your view as a starting point, you can scroll left and right on the genome and see other areas that DO NOT match up in the same way. So your snippet of that site supports your assertion, but the entire display of data (and it is A LOT) does not 'necessarily do so'. Here is a laymans presentation of some findings:
Mammalian Introns: When the Junk Generates Molecular Diversity - Hube and Francastel
Intronic Alternative Splicing Regulators Identified by Comparative Genomics in Nematodes - Kabat et al
Intron Delays and Transcriptional Timing during Development - Swinburne and Silver
Introns are mediators of cell response to starvation - Parenteau et al., 2019
Nutrient-dependent regulation of a stable intron modulates germline mitochondrial quality control - Annabel Qi En Ng, Seow Neng Chan & Jun Wei Pek
Excised linear introns regulate growth in yeast - Bartel et al

Apologies for such a late reply, considering how far the discussion has grown. But I think some of the topics have been finding a similar thread in some of the posts. I'm replaying to Message 414You are still assuming evolution. If you are looking at diverse species and comparing sequences, you could comment on a ‘sequence similarity’ and build from there. But instead you are then commenting on “sequence conservation” which is assuming the process of evolution between species.Earlier you referred to exons being conserved and introns not being conserved, that “This is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution and common ancestry are true.“ Why would evolution expect that? Why would it expect to retain one part of the genome and not another. It wasn’t meant to explain the differences with evolutionary distance, because I am not assuming evolutionary relationships.But common design can explain those items. I explained it before, but perhaps I need to make it simpler.Exons (mostly) code for proteins. Their nucleic sequences via at least two coding schemes translate into amino acids that form proteins. Proteins are the building blocks of cells. In a common design scenario, the same basic building blocks (proteins) would be used to form the primary matter of different designs. That is why exons would appear to be basically the same across different forms of life, to the extent where the same building blocks are required for the same or similar purposes.Introns, from what we currently know, do not code for proteins. With no need for representing the same building blocks across different life forms, there is no need for them to be necessarily homologous. But introns do have uses, some of them elucidated in the video I embedded in my prior post. A common design explanation might have a necessary or advantageous purpose for them per differing life forms, but the expression of that purpose would not be the same between differing life forms. For example, introns might do purpose-’A’ for one particular lifeform’s building blocks, but for a different life form it would need to do purpose-’B’ for the same building blocks. Thus they would not need to be the same (conserved) between different life forms.Another analogy might be Legos. Exons are the individual pieces. Introns relate to instructions pages using the individual pieces. You would find the same pieces being used among different Lego builds, but the instruction pages would likely be unique to each differing build. You didn’t show anything above to dissuade Common design. You merely declared that it doesnt explain.The problem with your quote on parsimony is that 1) I am not necessarily claiming a supernatural explanation, and 2) your “observed natural mechanisms” have not been “found sufficient to explain the observed effects”. So that is a wash. It wasn’t meant to be. It merely is showing that introns have a number of purposeful uses.But your question does lead to an interesting situation. If in an evolutionary scenario, intron sequences are not being conserved, why would there be a general increase of intron usage as evolutionary time progresses. I wouldn’t think with evolution that something that is not conserved (or as you later say in on example is being removed by evolution) would find an increased and diverse usage in younger life forms. Nor would one expect to see an increase of intron usage to use what is apparently de novo sequences for them. - https://www.sciencedaily.com/...ses/2009/12/091210111148.htm The length of introns in yeast is probably irrelevant. But I would expect yeast to have fewer and/or shorter introns comparable to humans, considering yeast is single-celled and humans are multi-celled organisms. This (again) is under the idea the introns are not coding for proteins, but do have other information (purpose) tied to those proteins which may be differing between organisms.Why they are not the same in yeast as in humans, from a common design explanation, is easy to say. Because introns have different purposes in yeast genes vs human genes. If differing purposes are designed, then of course they would not be the same.