Originally posted by FeceMan
http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=tu
Why would you post something that proves you wrong?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would you post something that proves you wrong?
Hence, I posted that link.
EDIT: Stupid questions.
1. What type of middle repetitive DNA is associated with the nucleolus, LINEs or SINEs?
2. What are some of the differences between active and inactive genes, aside from the obvious?
Originally posted by FeceMan
I wouldn't.Hence, I posted that link.
EDIT: Stupid questions.
1. What type of middle repetitive DNA is associated with the nucleolus, LINEs or SINEs?
2. What are some of the differences between active and inactive genes, aside from the obvious?
1. Why do you make me do research?
2. Structure. Inactive genes are all coiled up.
Alliance-
In response to your last message: I support micro-evolution; it is scientifically based and countless examples of such are avaliable in nature. Only uneducated people and/or persons with bias views would deny micro-evolution as a matter of fact. On the other hand, MACRO-EVOLUTION is false; it is not scientifically based, and their are certainly no examples of such in nature. Only uneducated people and/or persons with extreme bias views would support the theory of MACRO-EVOLUTION as fact.
Scientific knowledge and technology has grown by leaps and bonds since Darwin's day, especially over the past 50 years!
A cell is NOT a simple structure.
A cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules at different times and under variable conditions. Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintenance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, and communication are functions that take place in virtually every cell by means of molecular machines with highly coordinated moving parts.
Cells are more advanced that any man-made machine on the face of the planet.
MACRO-EVOLUTION fails miserably to explain (not only the "origin" of bio-matter) but the construction of such bio-matter into complex, functioning organisms. And we haven't even questioned the origins of bio-chemical information (DNA) yet, which... does not consist of matter. Where did it come from?
Nonetheless, my challege to you -- since we were talking about genetic mutation -- was to give one example of the "NET" evolutionary change of any organism as a result of genetic mutation.