@MSGID: <uhhhhihibe1d0ee5nqiatoe8gub9ur4vbh@4ax.com>
c601ce09
@REPLY: GHI6.10829@fx17.iad>
77e54af0
@REPLYADDR El Kabong <twang@the.noodle>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 El Kabong
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID:
<uhhhhihibe1d0ee5nqiatoe8gub9ur4vbh@4ax.com>
@RFC-References:
<e0fc3b84-ca8c-4b5d-a72a-50023b37184bn@googlegroups.com> <344c4b95-8bc9-4797-bb85-19d071df8645n@googlegroups.com>
US27.1879222@fx01.ams4>
<6b58486e-8f97-45d6-8e19-a204043e1938n@googlegroups.com> TwR4.41971@fx46.iad>
Hih7.11787@fx11.iad>
<7seghi5m6qga3ogst61ucd5kbrpbujhljb@4ax.com> GHI6.10829@fx17.iad>
@TZUTC: -0700
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
Ron Dean wrote:

> So, is it reasonable to consider that the effectiveness of the DNA`s
> proofreading and repair machinery has undergone continuous decline, due to
> the 2/ND law and increasing entropy over this 200k years?

No.

Can you can identify any of the ridiculous assumptions
that went into your silly question?
--- Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
 * Origin: blocknews - www.blocknews.net (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441