Summations Only

It seems a shame that this thread is entering summation mode prior to being closed.Wouldn't it be wiser to leave it open - new evidence seems to be regularly appearing in the journals which we could discuss as we stumble across it?

I assume one of us moderators set summation mode to 300 messages when we were already just a couple messages away from that. I've just increased it to 400.

This is rather disingenuous of you don't you think? You asked for specific examples of duplications adding additional functional genes. You were given several examples (by myself and Taq) but apparently that was not what you were really looking for.1. We observe duplications in laboratory populations of Drosophila
2. Duplications have effects that are expressed in the phenotype of laboratory populations of Drosophila
3. We make observations of populations of different species of Drosophila
4. We observe the types of duplication events that were observed in the lab and they are part of what makes these species different from each other.
5. By experimentation, we can determine the function of these duplicated regions
6. By comparing the different regions, we can determine what changes caused these different functions
7. This strongly suggests that a duplication event and subsequent divergence that led to speciationIs this proof that this is actually what happened? No, of course not. But it strongly implies it. Does it exclude these other possibilities? No, any of these three possibilities could have happened, but which option does the evidence suggest?You also ignored the other questions in my post. Why do you think that duplications reduce fitness? It seems as if you are basing your thinking on the idea of genetic entropy. Is that the case? Polyploidy is rather common in plants (although it does occur in some animals) and is the duplication of entire chromosomes and even the entire genome. Sometimes the genome has undergone multiple polyploidy events, there are even examples of dodecaploids (12 copies of the chromosomes). So not only duplication of one or two proteins, but many, many proteins with no reduction in fitness. In fact, it is common for polyploids to be more successful than their predecessors.I don't want to convince you to be an evolutionist (I don't actually consider myself to be one) or an atheist (I am not), but we need to be able to have sincere discussions about these things. If you are going to be one who simply dismisses evidence, things won't get very far and this will be nothing but an exercise in futility.HBD

* Since we have additional 100 msgs in this thread, I can take the time to ask this Is citrate utilization an identifying characteristic of e-coli? I looked at an older version of the Enterotube and cit - is one of the identifying characteristics of e-coli, with 0% showing cit +. However, a newer version appears to have some more leeway as to the citrate test in identification of e-coli.With you doing this on a daily bases, is cit - a characteristic you would use to identify e-coli? Do you use Enterotube for diagnostic purposes?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarification

herebedragons, if the populations started off as duplication free, and then duplications are witnessed in the lab coming naturally from the duplication free population then you would have a point. (provided the duplication is also protein coding and improves fitness). To merely observe two species are different and assume the order of events is the less complex first, and the more complex later, is just that, an assumption.Maybe I misread your link , but it seemed to be basing its assumptions of additional genes being created millions of years ago, which seemed to indicate to me that the gene duplications were not observed as created in the lab in current time-frames. Did I misread it?I am not dismissing anything, just because there is a complex organism and a less complex organism, does not prove your point that the more complex came from the less complex. Disabling and deletions is frequently observed, surely the more likely assumption is a disabling and then subsequent deletions as that area of the genome is no longer functional? Why not assume the more observed process, rather than the less observed process?Regarding your other questions , yes I do believe in genetic entropy, that is what I was referring to. Sometimes the devolution/de-complexifying can increase fitness, not just be damaging.Regarding duplication of protein production, this is just what I have observed, I could be wrong in the scope of the principle but I've generally observed that when you increase protein production above its normal state this would cause excess protein and damage the fitness of the organism. (eg Down's syndrome)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I could care less what you believe in. What I am interested in is what you can demonstrate. So how can you demonstrate, with evidence, that this gene was designed and placed there by an intelligent designer?

We do observe duplications occuring in the lab. While we may not witness a specific duplication, we already know that there are natural mechanisms that result in duplications. It's a bit coming upon a salt crystal. We assume that the salt crystal formed by the evaporation of a saline solution. We do not assume that Leprechauns magically poofed it into being from nothing. Why? Because the natural mechanism is a sufficient explanation that has observable evidence behind it.

Taq, I believe evolutionists and creationists are in the same position that our own views both fit the evidence, and yet its hard to disprove the other's view. Just as you may see evolution in the chromosomal organization of an organism, I see intelligent design.I cannot prove my position. But its a viable hypothesis, as evolution is a viable hypothesis.

TAQ said: "We do observe duplications occuring in the lab. While we may not witness a specific duplication, we already know that there are natural mechanisms that result in duplications. It's a bit coming upon a salt crystal. We assume that the salt crystal formed by the evaporation of a saline solution. We do not assume that Leprechauns magically poofed it into being from nothing. Why? Because the natural mechanism is a sufficient explanation that has observable evidence behind it."I do believe in duplications, have any been shown to be protein coding, where both the original and the duplicate are protein coding, and the organism improves fitness?

Creationists do not have any evidence for their mechanisms. They are not in the same position. No one has ever observed a supernatural deity changing DNA sequences. We have observed natural mechanisms changing DNA sequences and duplicating genes. I don't care what you see. What can you demonstrate with evidence? What evidence do you have that intelligent agents changed DNA sequences in the past?

"Using insecticide-resistant Myzus persicae, we provide evidence here for gene duplication without subsequent mutation, conferring a definite selective advantage to intact higher organisms in adverse environmental conditions."
Insecticide-resistant Myzus persicae as an example of evolution by gene duplication | Nature

Taq, that article at first glance seems to make a very strong point in your favor. However on further analysis there are two definite processes required for evolution according to the article itself:"DUPLICATION of structural genes is believed to be a prerequisite for evolution because it allows forbidden MUTATIONS of the REDUNDANT copy while preserving the advantageous parental gene"According to the article evolution requires:
Firstly there is the creation of a REDUNDANT COPY (duplication)
Secondly there are MUTATIONS to the redundant copy that activate it in a positive way, where the extra proteins have benefitWithout seeing the rest of the article it appears that they merely proved the first stage of evolution (duplication) had fitness benefits, a redundant copy will often benefit an organism. They are 100% clear that the second stage, subsequent mutation had not occurred yet. This improved fitness through redundant duplication is especially prevalent in plants whereby duplications may add hardiness to an organism by providing an alternative option when there is DNA damage to that portion of the DNA."Using insecticide-resistant Myzus persicae, we provide evidence here for gene duplication WITHOUT SUBSEQUENT MUTATION, conferring a definite selective advantage to intact higher organisms in adverse environmental conditions."Secondly they do not provide evidence that the duplication occurred from a population of organisms in which the duplication was not originally evident. ie the article does not give the background of how the duplication was established.Edited by mindspawn, : Adding clarityEdited by mindspawn, : Additional point

What evolution requires is a change in fitness. What the authors are saying is that the idea that the copy must mutate in order to change fitness is actually false. You can have an increase in fitness without the copy needing to accumulate mutations. It is not redundant where fitness is concerned. It is a required feature. This work merely demonstrates that the simple act of duplication without any subsequent mutation can still result in evolution. I think we can both agree that subsequent mutations in the copy that also result in increased fitness will be selected.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I don't see the emphasis of those authors as you do, but anyway, I agree with you that the non-mutated duplication can cause improved fitness. Inactive duplications create hardiness and therefore have a function.This would not explain the number of active protein coding beneficial genes you find in a human. Evolution claims these were evolved from fewer genes. How?

It does explain it. Duplicate genes can increase fitness and would therefore be passed on. This increases the number of genes.