|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4305 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: The development of the eye involves many, many genes. That is my point. So what happens if the eyeless gene is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? What happens if the eyeless gene is not placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? What happens if the Small gene from a mouse is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? Is it necessary to input any other genes to get the eye to develop? If not, would all the information needed to cause the eye to develop in the leg of the fruit fly be contained in the eyeless gene or the Small gene? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
What happens if you put the gene in a sponge, clam or a jellyfish?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Mr Jack,
Mr Jack writes: What happens if you put the gene in a sponge, clam or a jellyfish? I don't know. Has anyone tried that? I do know if you put the eyeless gene or Small gene in the embryo of a fruit fly in the genes responsible for the leg that the leg will have an eye. That has been done. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
So what happens if the eyeless gene is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? What happens if the eyeless gene is not placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? What happens if the Small gene from a mouse is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? Is it necessary to input any other genes to get the eye to develop? If not, would all the information needed to cause the eye to develop in the leg of the fruit fly be contained in the eyeless gene or the Small gene? I mean no insult here, so don't take this the wrong way. You really need to have a better understanding of what organs and limbs are made of before you can understand how they form. What you need is a semester or two of histology, just to start out. A semester or two of comparative vertebrate anatomy and embryonic development would really help too. A feature like the eye is made up many, many different types of cells producing different proteins, different cell receptors, etc. You need connective tissue, photoreceptors, nerve cells, mucosal cells, epithelial cells, endothelial cells, and many more that aren't coming to mind. Each of these cell types was ultimately derived from that first, single fertilized ovum that was you. So how do we get all of these different tissue types? Through master control genes that cause a cell lineage to develop into one of the cell types. If you knock out one of the master switches then the eye does not develop because the cellular signals to develop these tissue types is not communicated to the surrounding cells. Such is the case for the eyeless gene and others. It is like putting a hole in the gas tank of your car and then concluding that the gas tank moves the car because it no longer moves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
I do know if you put the eyeless gene or Small gene in the embryo of a fruit fly in the genes responsible for the leg that the leg will have an eye. That has been done. In this case, the Hox genes further up the gene cascade are saying "build a leg here", but they turn on the "make an eye here" switch instead. That is what is happening. Again, you are confusing the switch with the circuit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi JRTjr,
JRTjr writes: I propose to dedicate a string to whether or not I can, using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences, disprove ‘Macro-Evolution’ Why should you have to disprove 'Macro-Evolution'? There is no documented evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever occured. There is no reproducible accounts of 'Macro-Evolution'. The fossil record does not support the assertion that 'Macro-Evolution' has occured. It is known that creatures do change over time. It is then assumed that all the little changes can pile up to be large enough to cause one creature to cease to be that creature and become a totally different creature. To believe that 'Macro-Evolution' has taken place requires faith in a process that has no reproducible evidence. It is based upon assumptions and the belief that it has occured as it is necessary for the theory to be correct. In Message 167 RAZD said to ABO:
RAZD writes: We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact. We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs, and HAS occurred in the past. When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question. I do believe that it would be possible to trace my linage back to the mankind male and female that was created in Genesis 1:27 if the history was available. But modern man did not exist before this mankind. I do believe that two population can become so different they can't interbreed as my horse avatar would be evidence of. I also believe all creatures have a common ancestor except fish which was produced from the water and the mankind created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27. Everything else was formed from the ground which would be a common ancestor. In the same message RAZD said:
RAZD writes: 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. This was presented to show that the faith he was talking about is different from the faith I have. He has faith that eventually what he believes will be substantiated by fact. I have faith that eventually my belief that God created everything will be substantiated by fact when I meet God face to face. Now if anyone disagrees with what I have said present verifiable reproducible evidence of an instance of 'Macro-Evolution'. Watch the attacks begin. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: In this case, the Hox genes further up the gene cascade are saying "build a leg here", but they turn on the "make an eye here" switch instead. That is what is happening. Again, you are confusing the switch with the circuit. Are you saying the leg does not exist? I understand that the leg has an eye in it where the eyeless gene or the Small gene is placed. If you have evidence to that says different would you please present it. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
There is no documented evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever occured. I do believe that it would be possible to trace my linage back to the mankind male and female that was created in Genesis 1:27 if the history was available. But modern man did not exist before this mankind. Evidence please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Are you saying the leg does not exist? The problem is that you don't understand what a leg is made of at the cellular level, nor how those cells are derived from stem or pleuripotent cells. Do you even understand what a triploblastic body plan is? Ever heard of the ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm? Clearly, my explanations are going past you, but it isn't because my explanations are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Oh, are you back?
Are you going to return to the threads you abandoned?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
ICANT writes: Is it necessary to input any other genes to get the eye to develop? If not, would all the information needed to cause the eye to develop in the leg of the fruit fly be contained in the eyeless gene or the Small gene? ICANT, the eyeless gene from a mouse inserted into a fruit fly produces an insect eye. The very same mouse gene, when inserted into a spider would produce an arachnid eye. In a mouse it causes a mammal eye to develop. This tells us that other genes must be involved in the development of an eye. Edited by Parasomnium, : Spelling Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
So what happens if the eyeless gene is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? Well since 'the genes that form the leg' is almost as incoherent in terms of developmental biology as your idea that Eyeless is the sole gene responsible for eye development it shard to say. What was actually done experimentally was the co-option of non-coding enhancer elements causing limb specific ectopic regions of Eyeless expression. This does indeed induce ectopic eyes, but so does similar ectopic expression of the gene Dachsund (Shen and Mardon, 1997 (PDF)). So how many involved in eye development do you accept? Some estimates are in the low thousands. And if several of them have the same capacity as Eyeless to induce ectopic development what does that mean?
What happens if the eyeless gene is not placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? Obviously without any intervention the fly should develop normally.
What happens if the Small gene from a mouse is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? I assume you mean Pax-6, which was previously called Small eye, the answer is that it similarly induce ectopic fly eyes.
Is it necessary to input any other genes to get the eye to develop? If you mean do you need to ectopically express other genes then the answer is no, but all the other genes are already contained in the genome.
If not, would all the information needed to cause the eye to develop in the leg of the fruit fly be contained in the eyeless gene or the Small gene? As I said before, the vast majority of the genes and information required are in the genome in every cell of the organism. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: Each of these cell types was ultimately derived from that first, single fertilized ovum that was you. Where did I mention the Aniridia gene being placed in a human leg and it producing an eye? I don't think that has been done yet.
Taq writes: So how do we get all of these different tissue types? Through master control genes that cause a cell lineage to develop into one of the cell types. As I understand human DNA each cell has a double helix of DNA. Each strand has 750 megabits of information, which contains all the information required to construct a human body. If this is wrong please reference the information that states differently.
Taq writes: Such is the case for the eyeless gene and others. Why do the researchers say they can place the eyeless gene in the embryo of the fruit fly in the gene that builds the leg and it produce a functional eye in that leg? I am using information found in SCIENCE VOL. 267 24 MARCH 1995 pp. 1766-1767.
Taq writes: It is like putting a hole in the gas tank of your car and then concluding that the gas tank moves the car because it no longer moves. I think a gas tank and the eyeless gene is two different things and function in two different ways. Some have called the eyless the master gene for the eye as it can construct a functional eye. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: Evidence please. Do you call your picture evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'? If so it needs much explanation. Now as to why I say modern man did not exist prior to the man created in the image/likeness of God. The oldest known writings are 6800 years old. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Parasomnium,
Parasomnium writes: ICANT, the eyeless gene from a mouse inserted into a fruit fly produces an insect eye. The very same mouse gene, when inserted into a spider would produce an arachnid eye. In a mouse it causes a mammal eye to develop. This tells us that other genes must be involved in the development of an eye. I would have thought it would be because they had a common ancestor. Are you sure it would not be because the DNA for the cells in the leg would have all the information necessary for the fruit fly? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024