Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material?
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 1 of 17 (486931)
10-25-2008 5:34 PM


Could you provide me with any specific scientific procedures that have resulted in a gain of NEW genetic material for an organism? (not a changing of current material, nor a doubling of current material. New material. New genes, proteins, etc.)
What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.
Bottom line is, it has to add NEW genetic material for the mechanism to work.
So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new. This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".
We are still waiting for the tests that show the introduction of new genetic material. So at this point, the evolutionary mechanism gives more support to creation than it does to the theory of evolution.
(and I appologize for my use of the word "species". I forget that I come from other forums where people freak out if you use anything Biblically referenced.)
This is a quote of mine from another thread, but it was off topic, so I'm hoping to start a new discussion.
So can anyone provide any documented lab results, procedures, tests, etc. that have shown an organism gaining genetic material?
Clarification: By new genetic material, I mean exactly that. New. A fruit fly developing a leg that comes out of its head does not count as new. The genetic material for a leg already existed, so there is nothing "new" there, it's just moved. Same thing with doubling of genetic material. That only doubles what we already have, it does not produce anything "new". For the evolutionary mechanism to work, there HAS to be new genetic material formed. So where is the evidence?
Edited by wardog25, : Clarification

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 10-25-2008 7:18 PM wardog25 has replied
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 10-27-2008 1:17 PM wardog25 has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 17 (486938)
10-25-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-25-2008 5:34 PM


Since the first question that will be asked is "what do you think new genetic material is or would look like?" it would help get the thread rolling properly if you supplied that definition to start with.
It should be promotable when you've done that. Edit it into the opening post (OP) and reply to this message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 5:34 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by wardog25, posted 10-27-2008 12:29 PM AdminNosy has not replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 3 of 17 (487074)
10-27-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
10-25-2008 7:18 PM


done. clarification added.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 10-25-2008 7:18 PM AdminNosy has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 17 (487077)
10-27-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-25-2008 5:34 PM


still no definition
You still have not supplied a definition of what is "new". You give some clues as to what is not "new" but even that isn't explained.
May I try to help (you can ignore it if I'm way off your meaning):
Our "genetic material" consists of our DNA. DNA consists of strings of 4 different "bases". The pattern of these bases is what determines the proteins that will be produced (indirectly) from our DNA.
Is this what you mean by "genetic material"?
If our "genetic material" is increased by the doubling (or more) of some part of the pattern then the exact same pattern is there (just more copies) so that is not an increase in "genetic material".
Thus to make new "genetic material" there has to be a new pattern.
Is that a good definition of what you mean by "new genetic material"??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 5:34 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by wardog25, posted 10-30-2008 9:29 AM AdminNosy has replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 5 of 17 (487358)
10-30-2008 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
10-27-2008 1:17 PM


Re: still no definition
Sorry for the slow response. Life is busy.
I was thinking a bit more zoomed out I suppose. But I think you answered my question, because that demonstrates the types of answers I will get. Yes, a mutation constitutes a slightly "new" pattern, but I wouldn't call it an addition to the genome that would eventually allow for the formation of new tissues, organs, and other structures.
Evolutionists will differ of course, saying that if a mutation in the pattern can happen, we can assume that if the perfect order of perfect mutations happened, we'd eventually get something larger that was positive. And we'll be back to what usually happens in these circular discussions, which is drawing different conclusions from the same evidence because of starting with different assumptions.
So since I'm so busy right now, maybe I'll save myself the trouble. That is, unless you can think of a way to define the question in a manner that gets at the heart of the issue. But right now I'm too busy to spend the time on it.
-Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 10-27-2008 1:17 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 10-30-2008 9:48 AM wardog25 has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 17 (487359)
10-30-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by wardog25
10-30-2008 9:29 AM


done with it then?
I thought we had gotten to the heart of the issue.
Do you want me to leave this open for you or not?
Yes, a mutation constitutes a slightly "new" pattern, but I wouldn't call it an addition to the genome that would eventually allow for the formation of new tissues, organs, and other structures.
You have, it seems, agreed that there can be "new genetic material" but you topic has now changed.
Your issue is whether or not this can produce various forms of morphological change. Right?
If you do want to get this topic rolling could you explain what you think can be formed ("small" changes?) and can not be formed "new tissues"? It would then be useful for you to give your reasoning and evidence as to why the later can not be formed through the addition of "new genetic material" of the kind discussed.
The title could then be changed to something like:
"Impossibility of Major Morphological Changes". Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by wardog25, posted 10-30-2008 9:29 AM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by wardog25, posted 10-31-2008 9:08 AM AdminNosy has replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 7 of 17 (487416)
10-31-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminNosy
10-30-2008 9:48 AM


Re: done with it then?
Ok, we can go with that.
The argument is fairly simple from that perspective. Neither artificial selection, nor natural selection (the two observable evolutionary mechanisms) have been demonstrated to produce new tissues, organs, or other body structures.
Assuming that tiny variations from mutations can result in a completely new protein, new kind of cell, or new tissue, is exactly that: an assumption. It has not been scientifically demonstrated and is at best a guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 10-30-2008 9:48 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 10-31-2008 10:07 AM wardog25 has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 8 of 17 (487419)
10-31-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by wardog25
10-31-2008 9:08 AM


rewrite it then
Ok. Your issue is no totally different from the opening post. Could you rewrite and re-title that OP or just start another one.
Since there are cases of "new structures" perhaps you could also be more precise as to what you count as new and what you don't count.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by wardog25, posted 10-31-2008 9:08 AM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by wardog25, posted 10-31-2008 11:18 AM AdminNosy has replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 9 of 17 (487423)
10-31-2008 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by AdminNosy
10-31-2008 10:07 AM


Re: rewrite it then
I guess I'm not sure how specific of an explanation you are asking for.
A new structure would be something that is not a current structure that was moved. It is not a current structure that is duplicated. It is not a structure that wasn't exhibited because the gene was not activated (but the gene for it was always there). A new structure is a structure that is completely brand new. Something that did not exist before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 10-31-2008 10:07 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AdminNosy, posted 10-31-2008 1:41 PM wardog25 has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 10 of 17 (487436)
10-31-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by wardog25
10-31-2008 11:18 AM


Re: rewrite it then
Ok, then rewrite the OP doing the best you can. You might give an example of what would not and what would constitute a "new" structure in more concrete terms.
I know this is hard but if you can't spell out what you are talking about you will get into a mess in the first few hours of the thread since several individuals will ask you to define your terms so you might as well get it over with.
For example, your first crack at it turned out to be a non starter. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by wardog25, posted 10-31-2008 11:18 AM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by wardog25, posted 11-02-2008 10:48 PM AdminNosy has replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 11 of 17 (487648)
11-02-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AdminNosy
10-31-2008 1:41 PM


Re: rewrite it then
I'm not sure how I can give an example of something I don't think exists. That's why I gave examples of what it isn't - so that people can give what they think counts as "new", then we can discuss why it is or it isn't.
Does this make sense? How can I give an example of something that I don't think happens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AdminNosy, posted 10-31-2008 1:41 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AdminNosy, posted 11-02-2008 11:52 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 13 by Admin, posted 11-03-2008 9:06 AM wardog25 has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 12 of 17 (487651)
11-02-2008 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by wardog25
11-02-2008 10:48 PM


examples
You suggest that a certain thing doesn't occur. You need to describe what that is.
For example, an evolutionist will tell you that new structures never arise without an antecedent to build from. They will say this never happens. But they can still describe what one would look like.
E.g., The fossil record will not contain an organism with a body structure that is utterly unrelated to all parts of all previous organisms. An example would be, a chewing structure that has supporting bony structure that consists of bones that are not in any way related to any bones of all related species. If all relatives had 300 bones and this guy had 304 bones with the additional 4 showing no connection to any of the earlier 300 it would be an example that evolution says doesn't happen. That is, the 4 bones are not duplicates with modifications of any of the previous 300 bones the organism would be a counter example.
There have been no such structures found to-date. Examples that do NOT meet this criteria are the wings of birds, bats, your arms and the fin structure of tictalic are all very different structures but all have clear relationships to one another.
There I have described something that I am sure doesn't happen. I think it is described clearly enough to make it possible to know for sure if you have found a counter example.
In other words: you do have to know what you are talking about before you make statements about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wardog25, posted 11-02-2008 10:48 PM wardog25 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 13 of 17 (487673)
11-03-2008 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by wardog25
11-02-2008 10:48 PM


Re: rewrite it then
Hi Wardog25,
The sincere effort you're making to improve your opening post is appreciated, but I can tell you're puzzled by AdminNosy's requests. I can't read AdminNosy's mind, but he seems to be seeking increased clarity about the types of processes you're excluding.
You've excluded gene duplication, so maybe it would help if you can make clear why you're excluding it. The standard view of gene duplication is that the duplicates mutate independently after the duplication and gradually become more and more different, eventually taking on completely different functions. If we can understand why you're excluding this it may make where you're trying to go with this more clear.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wardog25, posted 11-02-2008 10:48 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by wardog25, posted 11-04-2008 8:45 AM Admin has replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 14 of 17 (487737)
11-04-2008 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Admin
11-03-2008 9:06 AM


Re: rewrite it then
I've excluded duplication alone. Not duplication which involves mutation. That was one of the options that someone could bring up and discuss.
Really, the only thing I'm confused about is why I need to be so specific. (Please understand, I'm not criticizing, I'm just used to other boards where the topics are a little more open)
Because, honestly, if I need to take the time to research several different examples of what I'm asking for, I might as well not even ask the question. I assumed people would bring those examples up in the thread and we would discuss them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Admin, posted 11-03-2008 9:06 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 11-04-2008 9:32 AM wardog25 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 17 (487739)
11-04-2008 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by wardog25
11-04-2008 8:45 AM


Re: rewrite it then
I was originally concerned that you were excluding any process that began with gene duplication, so your response sounds very reasonable to me. If this satisfies AdminNosy I assume he'll promote this.
I understand it seems like we're being overly particular, but it doesn't really have anything to do with you, or at least not very much. We moderators have seen many, many topic proposals and how they turn out as threads, and sometimes we think we see warning signs in a proposal that don't turn out to be real. You say you've been at other discussion boards, so you can probably think of a few ways that discussions can get off to a bad start.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by wardog25, posted 11-04-2008 8:45 AM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Admin, posted 11-11-2008 9:49 AM Admin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024