>If it walks like a flamingo and looks like a flamingo, it is not necessarily
>a flamingo - or even a close relative. A controversial genetic study
>suggests we have completely misunderstood how the majority of birds are
>related, and that some species that look almost identical are not related at
>all.
>

This example shows how bird morphologies converge while their genes diverge.
Nature is plainly telling us that evolution (of those morphological
convergences) doesn't depend on genes.

Although the above fact needs no corroboration, put this case in a broader
context:
1. Human morphology is incomparably more complex than that of one of the
simplest worms, Cenorhabditis elegans, and yet both species have almost the
same number of genes (~20,000).
2. The genetic information determining the sequence of amino acids in peptide
chains is inappropriate (no one has ever attempted to prove that it is) for
determining spatial arrangement of cells from which animal morphology arises.
Even if, for the sake of argument, one would admit that that information is
qualitatively appropriate, another insuperable barrier would arise:
3. The amount of information for erecting the bird supracellular structure is
of the order of trillions of bits, while the amount of information in their
genome (genes and junk DNA) is less than one thousandth of that amount.

In view of the above, can anybody here in sbe or elsewhere show how genes might
determine bird morphology? Even a speculation on a defensible mechanism would
be a great revelation. 

Nelson R. Cabej
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/11/04 4:35:51 PM