User Tag List

Page 44 of 44 FirstFirst ... 343738394041424344
Results 431 to 436 of 436

Thread: The Central Flaw of Evolution

  1. #431
    Alumni Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    10,562
    Thanks
    12,483
    Thanked: 7,631
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    21474851
    Quote Originally Posted by freethinker View Post
    My argument regarding gene duplication and divergence of the new gene does not require the theory of evolution to be true. This is a fact that it happens. I found one article after a short Google search, "Gene Genesis: Scientists Observe New Genes Evolving From Mutated Copies", a Scientific American article.
    If you have any evidence for your claims, by all means, post it. If an article supports your argument, you can quote the pertinent parts & source it. But the 'new genes' claim is specious, at best. it is like wrecking a car, & calling it a 'new car!' Or washing it... IOW, there has been no changes in the genetic structure of the organism, just some aberrations within a particular gene, which is almost always destructive.

    Mutations of an existing gene can create a new gene with a different function such as creating a new protein. About 45% of all mutations are harmful, another 45% are neutral, and about 10% are beneficial. It doesn't matter that the creation of a new gene is an unlikely occurrence. A new gene that confers some adaptive advantage to an organism will multiply fast once it has a few generations to reach some minimal level in the gene pool.
    Your post of a diagram from a creationist website is not germane to this discussion. That is about chromosomes and I am talking about genes. The chromosomes in man and chimpanzees are not completely different - but that is for another discussion.
    I think that you are relying on creationist literature as a primary source.
    You can think whatever you want, but evidence has to be sourced & verified. Poisoning the well is a fallacy, not an argument or evidence. How is the graphic about the genome & chromosome flawed? I did not think it was from a creo site, as i avoid those, for the sake of the dainty thought processes of the dogmatists, here. AFAIK, this is basic science concerning the chromosome, & illustrates the parts for discussion.

    If you have some evidence that makes a point, other than vague innuendo about 'new' functions of a gene, that is not really quantified or demonstrated, you should do it. Otherwise, all you have are assertions.

    How is this graphic wrong or flawed in its descriptions?



    I thought it was a good illustration of the very complex science of genetics & the DNA. I use my own words, from decades of studying & researching this subject. I will quote other sources, from time to time, but i do not just do cut & pastes, or post links, & hope they do the 'debating' for me. I make my own points, & back them up with science, facts, reason, & evidence. I only ask for the same in return.

  2. #432
    Alumni Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    10,562
    Thanks
    12,483
    Thanked: 7,631
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    21474851
    Quote Originally Posted by Sled Dog View Post
    I am being rational.
    Lets discuss HAZ.
    Oh.
    WE can't.
    Because YOU won't.
    Because you know, and we know you know, that the evolution of the horse, the donkey and the zebra from a single progenitor species, shatters your nonsensical religious drivel.

    So you've had a 100 page tantrum on all the science and religion threads because the honest people (that means me) won't let that handle go.
    HAZ, pal, HAZ.
    And you can be sure I laugh at you and your rants.
    And ESPECIALLY at your begging.
    I do have a request. I ignore your posts, whenever possible. But trying to have a serious, thoughful discussion, when there are hecklers & disrupters is very difficult, if not impossible. I don't go to your threads, & disrupt, heckle, insult, or demean everyone taking an alternate position. You are like antifa.. disrupting any free speech from those you disagree with.. and hate. I don't begrudge you your opinion, and i'm not trying to change it. I only ask that you avoid my threads, since it seems to bring out the worst in you. You can rage & insult all you want, in your mosh pit threads, but most of my threads are in the science of philosophy subforums, & aren't really mosh pit topics. You try to make them that, as antifa tries to disrupt any free speech from conservatives.

    So, rather than continue in rude, ill mannered behavior, why not just avoid me, & especially threads that i start? Is that not just common human courtesy? I don't follow you around, demeaning you, ridiculing your threads, posts, or person, so why do you feel compelled to do this with me?

    I have tried reasoning with you, & it does not work. I have tried returning your insults, but instead of showing some dignity & self respect, you double down on the disruption. You do not post anything topical or thoughtful, just demeaning, insulting remarks that you seem to think are witty.

    So how about it? I don't want to see your posts, at all. I don't want to look at your avatar, but it is impossible to ignore you, since you post multiple times, to be sure you are seen, with the only purpose of disrupting & thread shitting. Why does this appeal to you? If you despise me so much, why not just avoid any discussion, instead of exposing yourself as an unreasoning, hysterical bigot?

    I am not going to engage you in any rational discussion, as history has shown this to be impossible. So why don't you just fuck off, & leave me alone?

  3. #433
    Member
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    84
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked: 31
    Rep Power
    429498
    Alfred Sturtevant was the first person to discover gene duplication while studying fruit flies (1925). The new genes were observed under a microscope. Other examples of gene duplication have been observed in many species including humans.

    whyevolutionistrue.worpress.com/2017/01/24/alfred-sturtevant-a-hero-of-genetics/ - The new gene is the same as the old gene. It takes time for the new gene to mutate into a gene that is functionally different or for the gene to be modified by changes to the control regions surrounding the gene.

    Ernst Mayr's book, "What Evolution Is", on page 108, section THE ORIGIN OF NEW GENES , states: A bacterium has about 1000 genes. A human has perhaps 30,000 functional genes. Where did all of these new genes come from? They originate by duplication, with the duplicated gene inserted in tandem in the genome next to the sister gene.Such a new gene is called a paralogous gene., At first, it will have the same function as the sister gene.
    However, it will usually evolve by having its own mutations and in due time it may acquire functions that differ from those of its sister gene.

    Gene duplication isn't speculative. It isn't unreasonable to conclude that some duplicated genes will mutate into a new gene that is beneficial. The rareness of this process is not an argument against it. Also, changes in the genome resulting from gene duplications are a very good way to trace descent.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to freethinker For This Useful Post:

    Quark (09-30-2017)

  5. #434
    Alumni Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    10,562
    Thanks
    12,483
    Thanked: 7,631
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    21474851
    Quote Originally Posted by freethinker View Post
    Alfred Sturtevant was the first person to discover gene duplication while studying fruit flies (1925). The new genes were observed under a microscope. Other examples of gene duplication have been observed in many species including humans.

    whyevolutionistrue.worpress.com/2017/01/24/alfred-sturtevant-a-hero-of-genetics/ - The new gene is the same as the old gene. It takes time for the new gene to mutate into a gene that is functionally different or for the gene to be modified by changes to the control regions surrounding the gene.

    Ernst Mayr's book, "What Evolution Is", on page 108, section THE ORIGIN OF NEW GENES , states: A bacterium has about 1000 genes. A human has perhaps 30,000 functional genes. Where did all of these new genes come from? They originate by duplication, with the duplicated gene inserted in tandem in the genome next to the sister gene.Such a new gene is called a paralogous gene., At first, it will have the same function as the sister gene.
    However, it will usually evolve by having its own mutations and in due time it may acquire functions that differ from those of its sister gene.

    Gene duplication isn't speculative. It isn't unreasonable to conclude that some duplicated genes will mutate into a new gene that is beneficial. The rareness of this process is not an argument against it. Also, changes in the genome resulting from gene duplications are a very good way to trace descent.
    This is the very point of the OP. You are making an equivocation.. a fallacious conclusion.. that since you can see 'some' variation within an organism, & that they can change in horizontal, 'micro' ways, you assume that they can change in major or 'macro' ways, too. But those are 2 different things.

    You still have fruit flies, even after millions of generations, attempting to 'see' evolution in action. I dispute the 'new genes!' claim from 1925. They maybe saw different genes, that were already in the parent stock, but there is no mechanism for 'creating' new genes. Fruit flies, or any organism, do not 'create' new genetic material.. adding traits, developing wings, feet, eyes, or anything. They can ONLY return what they began with, from the parent stock. If those genes weren't already there, there is no mechanism to create new ones.

    That is the basic claim of the ToE, & its basic fallacy. There is no mechanism to create new genetic material.. added chromosomes.. different genome structure.. you can only slightly modify what was there from the beginning, or draw upon existing variability.

    You compare bacteria with humans, & merely project or speculate that all the genes were 'created' by some mythical process. What is it, if it can do this amazing thing? Why cannot we observe it, if this is the source of all living things? Bacteria always produce bacteria. Humans always produce humans. How can you project they were descended? That is a fantastic claim, with no evidence.

    The quotes you provided are just the opinion of someone's speculation. This is not science. This is conjecture.

    What 'changes the genome?' You merely assume that, based on the assumption of universal descent. You cannot compare 2 diverse, completely different genetic structures & conclude descendancy, based on projection. There must be evidence. Show me the gene copies that suggest common descent. Show me a marker, like the mtDNA flag that actually indicates descendancy. But to merely assert it happened, & show a phylogenetic tree as proof, is circular reasoning. you are using the premise to prove the conclusion.

  6. #435
    Senior Member
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Morning Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,037
    Thanks
    529
    Thanked: 1,711
    Rep Power
    3328624
    They can ONLY return what they began with, from the parent stock. If those genes weren't already there, there is no mechanism to create new ones.
    Already proven wrong.
    Last edited by Morning Star; 10-02-2017 at 02:31 PM.

  7. #436
    Member
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    84
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked: 31
    Rep Power
    429498
    See the Wikipedia discussion (very brief) on Molecular Evolution, section Origins of New Genes. There are 4 ways that this can happen: 1) Gene Duplication, - already discussed 2) Retrotransposition - creates new genes by copying mRNA to DNA and inserting it into the genome, 3) Chimeric Genes - form when duplication, deletion, or incomplete retrotransposition combine portions of 2 different coding sequences to produce a novel adaptive function, 4) De novo origin - Novel genes can also arise from previously non-coding DNA. De novo genes are discussed in an article in quantamagazine.org "How New Genes Arise from Scratch".

    In recent decades or years it has become apparent that changes in gene regulation which can enhance or repress gene transcription or affect the timing during embryonic development at which gene transcription (protein synthesis) occurs. Gene regulation also involves chemical transmitters that affect which locations of the organism are affected. Gene regulation is likely the major evolutionary difference between humans and chimpanzees since the structural gene difference is only 1%. So we have to consider not just new structural genes but changes to gene regulation.

    I quoted the greatest evolutionary biologist of the 20th century, Ernst Mayr, because I thought his statement was profound, of interest to the audience, and he explained the process of gene duplication and divergence better than me.

    I have another quote from the book, Evolution (Douglas Futuyma), page 461, section, THE ORIGIN OF NEW GENES.
    "It is obvious that the approximately 30,000 different functional genes in mammalian genomes must have
    evolved from a much lower number in the earliest ancestor of living organisms. Presumably, all genes in the human genome ultimately descend from a single gene or set of genes that provided the first programs for life on earth. Moreover, the number of functional genes differs among major groups of organisms. How do such genes arise, and what processes lead to the origin of novel genes?
    Evolutionary biologists have described several mechanisms by which the genes in a species' genome originated, either from pre-existing genes in the same genome or in the genome of different species. These mechanisms include lateral transfer, exon shuffling, gene chimerism, retrotransposition, motif multiplication, and gene duplication."

    None of these mechanisms depend on the theory of common descent or evolution to be true. These mechanisms depend on cell biology or molecular biology primarily.

    Correction: There are closer to 20,000 genes in the human and mammalian genome, not 30,000. The source were somewhat old (2005).




    "Bacteria always produce bacteria. Humans always produce humans." - Are you claiming that speciation never takes place?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •