|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
quote: DNA certainly can be “snipped out of the DNA chain”. It’s called a deletion.
quote: That really doesn’t make sense. Even if we aren’t talking about actually sequencing the DNA. I think you’re failing to understand the terminology. And what do you mean when you deny that mutations are a natural phenomenon ? Are you suggesting that they are human-created, or a supernatural phenomenon ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
so explain how a whole gene gets snipped out of the DNA chain please, how often it happens and so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2338 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain Deletion - Wikipedia(genetics)It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Apparently it’s quite common in bacteria.
Gene loss by deletion is a common evolutionary process in bacteria, as exemplified by bacteria with small genomes that have evolved from bacteria with larger genomes by reductive processes.
And this article explains how it can happen, although it’s rather technical
the loss of a gene can be the consequence of an abrupt mutational event, such as an unequal crossing over during meiosis or the mobilization of a transposable or viral element that leads to the sudden physical removal of the gene from an organism's genome
Now how about answering my question? Why do you say that mutations are not a natural phenomenon ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Are you totally incapable of doing even basic research? That's right you will claim it is leftist plot if you cannot find any evidence to support you.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10295 Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Faith writes:
That's just chance working in mutations, nothing to do with "usage or fecundity," which I assume to be a fantasy explanation either you or something you read made up. Are you saying it is just a fantasy that the chimp and human genomes are different from one another?
Genes only change by which alleles make it up, or by mutations which in most cases do not change what the gene does at all, although in very rare cases could possibly bring about a new version of the gene's expression, but in some cases produces a disease process and in yet other cases simply kills the allele altogether. Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps if it isn't due to beneficial differences between their genomes?
The onjly thing that could alter existing alleles and produce new alleles is mutation and that as I've said above is a very iffy process as far as any desirable result goes. I'm always thinking from the creationist view of the original genome and that is an unbroken chain of DNA that is functional at all points, many genes for just one trait in most cases, each having two alleles that in combination all together create a huge variety of variations on that trait. If changing a genome makes the genome worse, how can there be different genomes in different original kinds? According to your view of genetics, there should only be one species in existence with the one and only possible genome. If you change that genome at all the species ceases to exist.
No, the form of the traits that develop can't exceed whatever the limits are that are already built into the genome. Then there should only be one created kind, but there isn't. Obviously, those limits don't exist. If genomes can't be changed to produce a new kind, then even a creator could not do it. If changing a genome can produce a new kind, then you need to explain why the observed processes of mutation could not produce those changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
. .
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Are you saying it is just a fantasy that the chimp and human genomes are different from one another? I don't get the question but the answer is that they are different because they are different creatures with different built in genomes that contain the genetic stuff for that species and no other.
Genes only change by which alleles make it up, or by mutations which in most cases do not change what the gene does at all, although in very rare cases could possibly bring about a new version of the gene's expression, but in some cases produces a disease process and in yet other cases simply kills the allele altogether. Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps if it isn't due to beneficial differences between their genomes? You have the ToE perspective that sees one evolving from the other but since I don't look at it that way I see two different creatures each with its own genome hardwired to its own characteristics since Creation. I'm arguing on the basis of how I understand mutations to affect a genome and that they can't affect it outside of its own created purpose in building the body of the species it is created for.
The onjly thing that could alter existing alleles and produce new alleles is mutation and that as I've said above is a very iffy process as far as any desirable result goes. I'm always thinking from the creationist view of the original genome and that is an unbroken chain of DNA that is functional at all points, many genes for just one trait in most cases, each having two alleles that in combination all together create a huge variety of variations on that trait. If changing a genome makes the genome worse, how can there be different genomes in different original kinds? According to your view of genetics, there should only be one species in existence with the one and only possible genome. If you change that genome at all the species ceases to exist. I can't follow this reasoning AT ALL, I have no idea what you have in mind. The sense in which mutations make a genome worse is that they interrupt functioning alleles which in most cases has a neutral affect and doesn't change the product, but in some cases may kill a gene or produce a disease. This can happen in any species, in the genome for that one species, or in any other species independently of one another.
No, the form of the traits that develop can't exceed whatever the limits are that are already built into the genome. Then there should only be one created kind, but there isn't. This makes absolutely no sense. Each species has its own genome that produces the characteristics of that species and only that species. The ability to vary many of its characteristics is built into the genome for that species and only that species: that's the limitation on each sepcies' genome. You can get variations on any particular trait of that species, but you can't get a characteristic that doesn't belong to that species. You can get a variety of sizes and colors etc and to some extent some minor structural differences but you aren't going to get even the beginning of a mammal foot from a rodent foot. And so far nobody has even suggested a pathway for such a thing to occur. I say it simply can't occur, the changes are not possible because the genome is confined to producing the characteristics of its own species.
Obviously, those limits don't exist. If genomes can't be changed to produce a new kind, then even a creator could not do it. If changing a genome can produce a new kind, then you need to explain why the observed processes of mutation could not produce those changes. I have a terrible time following your reasoning but I HAVE tried to explain that mutations can only alter the characteristics of the species the genome belongs to, at best can vary it but it will always be recognizable as a trait of that particular species and no other. It will be a rodent foot, not the foot of any other creature, no matter how it may vary in superficial ways. There is no mechanism for mutations to alter the genome to produce anything else than those characteristics. I hope you can follow my creationist reasoning although I'm having so much trouble making sense of your evo reasoning. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I gather it is a rare occurrence except in bacteria, and in any case it doesn't affect this discussion that I can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Clearly an undesirable event, but one that doesn't seem to affect this discussion in any case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2338 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
Clearly an undesirable event, but one that doesn't seem to affect this discussion in any case. Faith if it wasn't for the fact that we're "communicating" through the written word I'd suspect that you're illiterate. My post was in response to your comment:
I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain I gave you a link (admittedly slightly broken but how hard would it have been for you to scroll to the correct entry) explaining just how such a thing could occur.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
quote: You should try reading the links provided.
The recent increase in genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity.
There are plenty of citations to papers about multi-cellular life there, too.
quote: It is certainly relevant as to how species can evolve. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... lamingtons, for example. You may not have heard of lamingtons - they’re native to Australia. A lamington a day keeps the doctor away. Chocolate or cream filled or plain?
That what I meant (which should have been bleedin’ obvious). So the evidence of Pelycodus shows "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied.
It may infer common ancestry via biological evolution . but common ancestry via genetic experiments performed by aliens is a much better explanation. However, there is no way of testing either hypothesis. Except that the evidence shows an absence of outside tampering, while common ancestry in living species is observed and thus is a known process. Positing an invisible undetectable process is not needed to explain the evidence that matches the observed common ancestry process that is nown to occur. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1955 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
You should try reading the links provided.
Casual dismissal is easier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What mutations do isn't important enough to my argument to spend time on it. If there is something you want to get across you need to write it out yourself. From the little you did report I can see that a deletion would certainly change the gene frequency in a population where it occurred, but a change in gene frequency is still just a change within the genome of a species, it doesn't add anything to the genome that could even begin to point toward the formation of a new species.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024