|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The origin of new genes | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well you lost me again Brad, but I gather you make some room for creationism so that's appreciated. May I ask another question? Do you believe in God or are you an atheist or what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Faith you might take up that end of questions to me by going here:
http://EvC Forum: Is Brad McFall a fruitcake or what? -->EvC Forum: Is Brad McFall a fruitcake or what? I do recall saying I was "a YEC." I am an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church USA. I see no reason from within biology to change my independent reasons for proclaiming belief in Christ. And aside, Kant provides many complex thoughts that indicate there is no other means (moral within and starry skieswithout) for me to fullfill my longing for a better peace. I was born in USA not India. I could not change that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you, I THOUGHT you were a YEC but couldn't remember where I saw it or why I thought it and so much of what you say is beyond me I can't be sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It isn't MUCH more, and even if it were fifty that is a paltry number for the job asked of it, We've had hundreds in just a few referenced papers.
Let's have some more.
and the kinds of mutations you are talking about are mostly just weird, In what way weird?
not the kind of stuff that could put together such marvelous unities as life exhibits. ... such as color vision. Oh, wait ... ? And you'll just love Hox genes Yeah, I know the probabilities and they are simply astronomically unconvincing. I really don't know how they convince you. I don't know what you mean. Which probabilities are astronomically unconvincing? Edited by AdminJar, : fix link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Faith wrote:
quote: I explained that over the course of even millions, much less billions of years, it's unavoidable that little changes add up to big changes. Remember that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
quote: OK, I teach math at the local university. Understanding math is an absolute requirement for understanding the real world, since math is the language of the real world, and hence of science. It's not some subjective "those numbers make me feel good", touchy feely type of thing, where it's true for you if you choose to believe it, and you can choose it's false. The numbers show it's correct. If you want to deny correct things, well I guess it won't be the first time.
quote: I was going to point out that Faith again tells us information that is simply false (since many of the tails were fully functional, and the baby could express different emotions with them), but I see a whole thread has been started on it, so I'll just defer to that.
quote: OK, I'm starting to see a pattern here. In thread after thread, a creationist makes a claim, then fails to provide any evidence for it. After asserting the claim is true, the rest of us, with exasperation, provide evidence against it. Then the creationist either completely ignores it, or claims the evidence doesn't apply, or moves the goalposts around the evidence, or denies the evidence without reason, or even sometimes lies. Then the creationist claims there is no evidence for evolution or that the evidence is scanty, ignoring case after case that shows exactly what is being disputed. This goes on for a while until people either get tired of it or whatever. This happened with the "natural limit" thread, the brain thread, the degradation thread, and so many more as many of us know. Now it's happening here. I'm starting to see why so many of my Christian friends say that it's creationism, and the behavior of creationists, that's causing so many Americans to leave Christianity. Argh. Have a fun weekend everyone- Edited by Equinox, : No reason given. -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pesto Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 63 From: Chicago, IL Joined: |
"Faith" writes:
Sorry, but you don't get to supply your own definition for the word mutation. It already has a well accepted definition, and what you're doing amounts to moving the goal posts. Let's take another look at what Equinox wrote.
And if the mutation that brought about the tail is simply the recurrence of a formerly expressed allele, in my book that's not a mutation "Equinox" writes: AATACGTGTTGTGAC, and it promotes tail growth, then a mutation, say toAATACGTGTTGTGAT, may render it nonfunctional. That gene may then be selected for (since maybe women find a shorter tail sexy), and so later humans could all have the second version. Then, in a baby in Spain in the 20th century or some such, a mutation occurs that switches it back to a C, or to an equivalent nucleotide, since the system is redundant anyway: AATACGTGTTGTGAC. So the baby has a tail due to the mutation, revealing our evolutionary past (since the rest of the genetic mechanism for making a tail is still there). There are two similar, yet differently functioning strings of DNA. AATACGTGTTGTGAC - tail-formingAATACGTGTTGTGAT - non-tail-forming If both parents had only the non-tail-forming string of DNA, and their child received the tail-forming string of DNA, that is a mutation, plain and simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pesto Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 63 From: Chicago, IL Joined: |
I would like to point out that the following post was ignored.
"Dr Adequate" writes:
This calls one of two things into serious question. Either novelty can arise through mutation, or these species were not reduced to a population of two. The latter is off-topic for this thread, but I also doubt it would be an acceptable explanation for Faith, et al. It still stands that both cannot be true.
Variations are merely CALLED mutations without any evidence whatever that they are in fact mutations. Whatever it would take to prove that they are truly novel, never existing before in the population, is what is needed.
Very well. We prove it thus. Only two of each kind of unclean beast was taken onto the ark, one male, one female. mtDNA is passed down through the female line. Therefore, any variation of the mtDNA in an unclean baramin is evidence of a novel mutation. Such variation exists. QED.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, only some of the beasts were restricted to two. Others could have as many as seven females on the Ark.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I specified unclean beasts, didn't I?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4011 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
Hello Philip,
It seems that jerker77 isn’t inclined to answer your post, I hope you don’t mind when I step in. You asked to stop qualifying your analogies as "childish" and instead to focus on “BRAND NEW GENES" as REALITY or MYTH.”. Let’s just do it. Here is another example of a new gene, described in Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey The abstract reads:
Although the complete genome sequences of over 50 representative species have revealed the many duplicated genes in all three domains of life1, 2, 3, 4, the roles of gene duplication in organismal adaptation and biodiversity are poorly understood. In addition, the evolutionary forces behind the functional divergence of duplicated genes are often unknown, leading to disagreement on the relative importance of positive Darwinian selection versus relaxation of functional constraints in this process5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The methodology of earlier studies relied largely on DNA sequence analysis but lacked functional assays of duplicated genes, frequently generating contentious results11, 12. Here we use both computational and experimental approaches to address these questions in a study of the pancreatic ribonuclease gene (RNASE1) and its duplicate gene (RNASE1B) in a leaf-eating colobine monkey, douc langur. We show that RNASE1B has evolved rapidly under positive selection for enhanced ribonucleolytic activity in an altered microenvironment, a response to increased demands for the enzyme for digesting bacterial RNA. At the same time, the ability to degrade double-stranded RNA, a non-digestive activity characteristic of primate RNASE1, has been lost in RNASE1B, indicating functional specialization and relaxation of purifying selection. Our findings demonstrate the contribution of gene duplication to organismal adaptation and show the power of combining sequence analysis and functional assays in delineating the molecular basis of adaptive evolution.
-Bernd Edited by bernd, : spelling Edited by bernd, : fixed broken link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
bernd writes:
I ALWAYS welcome sincere feedback by bios, docs, laymen and/or tactful trollers, as long as they stay on topic and cough-up some 'credible' motives and/or evidences for their position. Your abstract on duplicated genes is of belated interest (my apologies). Let's break it down a bit:
I hope you don’t mind when I step in. Although the complete genome sequences of over 50 representative species have revealed the many duplicated genes in all three domains of life, the roles of gene duplication in organismal adaptation and biodiversity are poorly understood.
"Poorly understood" ... is the bottom line.Poorly understood speculations on mutation mechanisms? Of course they're poorly understood! Beneficial (advantageous) mutations don't ever occur (unless one unscrupulously perverts the defintion of mutation into mere "change", "NS", "adaptation", or the like fallacy) In addition, the evolutionary forces behind the functional divergence of duplicated genes are often unknown, leading to disagreement on the relative importance of positive Darwinian selection versus relaxation of functional constraints in this process.
Of course ToE forces of mutation are unknown! Even if a serious genetic programmer (human or divine) altered a given gene pool program to make artifical mutation somehow beneficial for survival, he'd risk ultimate extinction for that organism. HOW MUCH MORE would random mutations seem to expedite extinction of any gene pool program.
The methodology of earlier studies relied largely on DNA sequence analysis but lacked functional assays of duplicated genes, frequently generating contentious results.
Admittedly, duplicated genes are the only real commencing mechanism of evolution, were beneficial (advantageous) mutations *hopefully* viable.
Here we use both computational and experimental approaches to address these questions in a study of the pancreatic ribonuclease gene (RNASE1) and its duplicate gene (RNASE1B) in a ... monkey Ah, those computational approaches to the gene-pool-enzyme mutation, and their *complete* genomic sequences (notwithstanding the cascading eukaryotic protein factors of this monkey's complex gene-pool-app)
We show that RNASE1B has evolved rapidly under positive selection for enhanced ribonucleolytic activity in an altered microenvironment, a response to increased demands for the enzyme for digesting bacterial RNA. Whoa cowboy! Is this REALLY mutation? ... or is it merely natural adaptation (pre-built genome variability or such)?
At the same time, the ability to degrade double-stranded RNA, a non-digestive activity characteristic of primate RNASE1, has been lost in RNASE1B, indicating functional specialization and relaxation of purifying selection. "relaxation of purifying selection" ...Ouch, that babbling effeminate ToE syntax, again. This supports nothing concerning 'brand new genes', 'advantageous gene-pool-mutations', etc. Just bad grammar.
Our findings demonstrate the contribution of gene duplication to organismal adaptation and show the power of combining sequence analysis and functional assays in delineating the molecular basis of adaptive evolution. Ah! so it is merely "adaptive" selection after all; this is not evolution. The monkey's gene-pool program never changed via this code-duplication. (... Any more than my C++ program changed when it passes 2 [vs. 1] parameters into a sub-routine function). Obviously, there is much flexibility of adaptive codon-parameters passing (unscathed) in programs and functions throughout eukaryotic gene pool programs and apps. Again, this is not evolution proper, just program 'design' with finite flexible parameters of adaptation. ... Or did the gene REALLY duplicate into some 'freak' new code-function for the monkey's gene-pool-program? NOT! In sum: These studies in no way support: random "brand-new advantageous mutations" of new genes, just "hot-spot mutations" and other fallacious misnomers of beneficial mutation (i.e., having been pre-coded into that gene-pool program) DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Beneficial (advantageous) mutations don't ever occur (unless one unscrupulously perverts the defintion of mutation into mere "change"... Like the unscrupulous compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary: "[b]mutation[/i] noun : The changing of the structure of a gene." And the unscrupulous writers of my biology textbook: "mutation: a rare change in the DNA of a gene." Damn, everyone's in on the plot, aren't they? Either that, or lexicographers and biologists know the meaning of the word "mutation" and you are ignorant of it. That would certainly explain why the rest of your blather bears no relation to the text you are attempting to criticize.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But why settle for mere "change" when you can have "pre-built genome variability" eh?
LOL - it's the old creationists change the definition game again eh? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Ouch! "the changing of the structure" vs. "a rare change". Your contrary lexicon and biology dafinitions seem ridiculous. So which definition are you supporting anyway, as validating the origin of new genes.
Why not support YOUR own dafinition of 'beneficial mutation' (without 'mutating' it). My cat can barf up better definitions than these. Hey doc, I’m a doc (podiatrist and programmer (Home)). Not everything I code or write here is sensible nor without bias (hence the disclaimer below). Seems (to me) the *Creo's definition* ("pre-built genetic variability") aptly replaces those ridiculous *beneficial mutation* definitions anyway. DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
grod Inactive Member |
As an adolescent I have a simple view of which I find very simple about the overall evolution theory brought about from human opinions alone, I'm not going into complex details but basic genetics can even explain that evolution is simply derived from views and opinions of human beings.
I am I believer in christ at the age of 19 and I hope this audio mp3 link I have included gets you thinking about the reality of all of this, it answers many of these evolution questions - when you hear all of this, you will accept that what is being said is simple to comprehend. Here is the link of the "Genesis and the Origin of Races" by Ken Ham. May it also change your life. Edited by grod, : wrong link
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024