Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 243 of 367 (33625)
03-04-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by DanskerMan
03-03-2003 11:49 PM


quote:
quote:
As has become obvious, Sonnike is not up to any sort of dialogue.
He does not want to learn.
If that's "obvious" to you, I wonder how "obvious" scientific discoveries are to you.
I can find no meaning in that sentence.
quote:
quote:
I think my rant was right on - he is just searching for that crack to slime his way throough - to find justification for his flimsy anti-science beliefs.
Now you are just acting like a kindergarten bully who is bragging to his buddies about un-truths that makes himself feel good and important.
How interesting - I am a 'bully' because my initial assumptions were correct and I spell it out? Hmmm... 'Untruths'? Are you saying that I am wrong? If I am wrong, I find it odd that you have failed utterly to respond substantively to anything I have written. Indeed, what replies you have written have been simply more questions or nitpicking, in addition to ignoring large segments of posts.
I don't need to point out such tactics of creationists to feel 'good' and 'important.'
Indeed, I feel a bit sad and disgusted.
quote:
quote:
And now he has found an excuse to 'go away' and conclude - laughably erroneously - that there is some big problem in evolution because I cannot answer one of his tangential questions (ignoring, of course, the fact that he has ignored nearly everything I had presented thus far).
I'm glad you are not a psychologist.
How would you be able to tell?
I am still willing to carry on a dialogue, but it will be a complete waste of time and space and an utter exposure of the vacuousness of the creationist position if you intend to continue as you have done so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by DanskerMan, posted 03-03-2003 11:49 PM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 244 of 367 (33626)
03-04-2003 11:23 AM


Points stablished thus far
  1. Gene duplication occurs
  2. Mutation occurs
  3. 1 and 2 can get passed on to progeny
  4. Gene duplications can produce:
    1. new genes via subsequent mutation
    2. changes in phenotype without the generation of 'new
      information' (using creationist definitions)
  5. Because of 4b, the creationist argument that evolution requires "new information", that such information cannot arise naturally, and therefore evolution cannot happen, is falsified.
  6. The creationist argument outlined in 5. is further refuted by the fact that it was demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that mutation plus natural selection alone can and does provide new genetic information to the gene pool.
  7. The creationist focuses on minutiae and tangential topics to avoid addressing 1-6.
Comments welcome.
[Hope formatting is also welcome. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-04-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by DanskerMan, posted 03-05-2003 12:33 AM derwood has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 367 (33671)
03-05-2003 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by derwood
03-04-2003 11:23 AM


Some comments
Gene duplication occurs
Hi SLP, I apologize at the start, but I'm going to have to plead ignorance since I know very little about gene duplication, and I'm asking if you'd please explain in laymans terms *how* it occurs, *what* happens to a duplicated gene, *where* does it go, *what* causes it to happen, *how* different is a duplicated gene from the original, basically I need a tutorial if you please.
(incidentally, I just came across this while searching for something:
"There are insurmountable problems with this scenario:
The extra gene has to be inactivated; otherwise it could upset the functionality of the organism while it supposedly evolved. Duplicated genes cause dose effects, especially in animals, that are detrimentaltrisomy 21 (an extra chromosome 21) causes Down’s Syndrome in people, for example. You cannot just, willy-nilly, duplicate genes.
The duplicated gene has to be located where it does not interfere with the functionality of existing gene groups. If you duplicated a gene next to the existing one and the existing one comprised part of an operon, it would disrupt the functioning of the operon and mess up the biochemical pathway involved (an operon is a group of genes whose products operate together and which is controlled as a unit).
Mutations are not going to occur just in the duplicated gene; they are going to occur in the whole genome, so all the deleterious mutations have to be eliminated from the population. This incurs a cost, which slows any theoretical evolution to a snail’s pace and means there is just not enough time, even with the supposed billions of years, for evolution to achieve anything significant. For a brief discussion of this, see Population Genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution.
The duplicated gene, once it is capable of doing something useful, has to be reactivated so that it will produce a protein, for example. This scenario assumes Kimura’s ‘neutral theory’ of evolution, but there is no way that a gene can evolve a new function while it is not being expressed, because the chance of arriving at a new useful sequence ‘blind’ is worse than finding one atom in the whole universe by chance. Richard Dawkins realized that such is impossible, so he stuck to the standard neo-Darwinian story of step-wise mutations in an expressed gene (so natural selection can supposedly weed out the countless bad sequences). However, in this scenario every mutational step towards a new function has to be adding functionality, which is completely unrealistic. Furthermore, none of the products along the way can interfere with the existing cell functions, which is again unrealistic (note, for starters, the gene dosage point above).
You also need control mechanisms to make sure the right amount of the protein is produced (out-of-control production would not usually be a good idea).
Proteins must fold into their correct 3-dimensional shape to work and other proteins called chaperones, which have their own genes, assist in doing this. A new protein/enzyme may need new chaperones, which will have to evolve in parallel with the evolving duplicated gene (another duplication? Where? How will it get expressed at the same time?).
And this does not exhaust the list of unlikely events. We have not even considered the additional complications of traits that are produced by more than one gene (one duplicated gene won’t do the job alone) and pleiotropy, where a gene affects more than one trait, which can confound the capacity for natural selection to increase the frequency of the new gene. As we learn more of the details of growth and development, the list of problems for the gene duplication idea will undoubtedly grow. The gene duplication idea as a source of new genetic information just does not look at all feasibleit’s the stuff of more story telling, not hard (experimental) science."
ref
How do you seriously respond to something like that?
Mutation occurs
It does, and as you have pointed out, it is rare. Also mutations are usually harmful or neutral, I don't believe that is a lie.
1 and 2 can get passed on to progeny
Only if it's on the sex chromosome right?
Gene duplications can produce:
new genes via subsequent mutation
Is this actually documented? Behe seems to indicate that a duplicated gene is simply a copy of the original and that scientists have not explained how this new gene can acquire drastically different functions. ie:
"The critical point, however, is that the duplicated gene is simply a copy of the old one, with the same properties as the old one--it does not acquire sophisticated new properties simply by being duplicated. In order to understand how the present day system got here, a scientist has to explain how the duplicated genes acquired their new, sophisticated properties."
ref
changes in phenotype without the generation of 'new
information' (using creationist definitions)
Like legs on a fly's head? or less functioning limbs? Not necessarily productive.
Because of 4b, the creationist argument that evolution requires "new information", that such information cannot arise naturally, and therefore evolution cannot happen, is falsified.
Except that we still don't have the kind of information required for transspeciation.
The creationist argument outlined in 5. is further refuted by the fact that it was demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that mutation plus natural selection alone can and does provide new genetic information to the gene pool.
Can you provide some documentation for this please.
The creationist focuses on minutiae and tangential topics to avoid addressing 1-6.
Not really, more like monstrous difficulties.
Comments welcome.
Thanks. I REALLY do need more explanation re: gene duplication.
Regards,
S
[This message has been edited by sonnikke, 03-05-2003]
[This message has been edited by sonnikke, 03-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by derwood, posted 03-04-2003 11:23 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by peter borger, posted 03-05-2003 1:21 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 247 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-05-2003 3:01 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 248 by Karl, posted 03-05-2003 5:33 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 249 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2003 5:47 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 251 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-05-2003 9:43 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 259 by derwood, posted 03-06-2003 2:16 PM DanskerMan has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 246 of 367 (33675)
03-05-2003 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by DanskerMan
03-05-2003 12:33 AM


Re: Some comments
hi Sonnike,
Gene duplications occur, i.e they have been observed. You immediately have a redundancy and the duplicated will easily decay. It will only be maintained in the genome in the case of extreme selective pressure (as observed in insects that become resistent to insecticides, and in cancer cells that become resistent to chemotherapy.) The scenario that duplication is followed by divergence and adoptation of new functions is nothing but hypothetical.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by DanskerMan, posted 03-05-2003 12:33 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Peter, posted 03-05-2003 8:40 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 260 by derwood, posted 03-06-2003 2:18 PM peter borger has not replied
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 03-06-2003 3:05 PM peter borger has not replied
 Message 262 by Admin, posted 03-06-2003 4:14 PM peter borger has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 247 of 367 (33678)
03-05-2003 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by DanskerMan
03-05-2003 12:33 AM


Re: Some comments - What is Dr. Page's work load?
Sonnikke -
SLPx does a lot of posting here at , and quite possibly a lot more at other boards. Personally, I don't understand where he finds the time (presumably, unlike me, he does have a life elsewhere).
This really isn't intended as any sort of admin warning, but I thought I should inject some comments.
You are asking a lot of questions, and quoting rather lengthy questions/information from other sites. I am under the impression that you may be putting a pretty heavy load upon SLPx, to answer all these things.
I really don't have the answer to the (?)problem(?). Perhaps you need to look at some of the other topics here at . Or perhaps you need to look around Talk Origins some (I don't have the link at hand).
Others may also wish to comment on this situation.
As always, I may be wrong.
Adminnemooseus
{Added by edit:
quote:
... and I'm asking if you'd please explain in laymans terms...
I know that the genetics etc. talk around here does quickly gets over my head. I suspect the situation is the same for you. And I fear that you are looking for "laymans terms" type information on questions that may defy such possibilities. Plain and simple, the science may be pretty complex - and may be beyond the easy comprehension of the ignorant masses (in which I include myself).}
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by DanskerMan, posted 03-05-2003 12:33 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by DanskerMan, posted 03-06-2003 9:15 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 367 (33680)
03-05-2003 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by DanskerMan
03-05-2003 12:33 AM


Re: Some comments
I'll just address one, because I'm not an expert. However, this glaring misunderstanding got to me.
quote:
1 and 2 can get passed on to progeny
Only if it's on the sex chromosome right?
No. We get all our chromosomes from our parents. A mutation on any gene will be inherited. Perhaps you mean that the mutation has to occur in the production of gametes? In sexually reproducing organisms, this is of course correct. But the mutation can be on any chromosome and will be inherited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by DanskerMan, posted 03-05-2003 12:33 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 249 of 367 (33683)
03-05-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by DanskerMan
03-05-2003 12:33 AM


Re: Some comments
Sonnikke: Here's a description of gene duplication. It's not really exhaustive, but explains how it can occur. For a more detailed discussion of how one particular gene came into being through duplication events on a related gene, please see this article: Evolution of vertebrate steroid receptors from an ancestral estrogen receptor by ligand exploitation and serial genome expansions. There are a number of examples of beneficial mutations or enhanced functions from gene duplication in the literature. See the Sdic gene, as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by DanskerMan, posted 03-05-2003 12:33 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 250 of 367 (33689)
03-05-2003 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by peter borger
03-05-2003 1:21 AM


Re: Some comments
That's not entirely correct. Genetic experiments have shown
that artificailly duplicating a gene can have phenotypic
repurcussions.
It is only once a gene is observable to the environment (if you
see what I mean) that selection is an issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by peter borger, posted 03-05-2003 1:21 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by peter borger, posted 03-05-2003 5:35 PM Peter has replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 251 of 367 (33696)
03-05-2003 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by DanskerMan
03-05-2003 12:33 AM


Re: Some comments
Hi Sonnikke, I have been gone for a while, had to switch jobs when my old BioTech turned turtle, although hopefully it will transmute into a Phoenix. You asked for more info concerning pathways for gene control and duplication of genes for evolution. One major family of pathways involved in gene control which crosses species lines are the MAP Kinase proteins and their related protein families. Here is one very good reference providing informatio concerning the relationships
http://link.springer-ny.com/...als/00239/papers/49n5p567.pdf
(Sorry that I am not putting it in HTML format but I am short on time this morning). PLease note the clustering of the related p38 and JNK families with the related Yeast gene family for osmotic shock. These genes and their associated proteins play a different role than the mitogen activated proteins. Control generally occurs via a feedback style loop of the transcription factor substrates and the initiated gene product. Some of the apparently unrelated or difficult to trace families may be the result of looking at the active site rather than the docking site, of course the docking site data was not available at the time of publication of the paper. Here is a short reference for that as well.
http://www4.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=...
This type of duplication of a gene and use of the protein for a different function is rather common.
Another pathway, although not dealing with translational control of genes, is the clotting activity of horseshoe crabs. This is important as, based on current understanding, the Horseshoe crab is a very old and succesfull species. The reason that I like this pathway is that it trashes one of Dr. Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity, namely blood clotting. Here is a little info on the crab and the clotting system.
Page Not Found | Marine Biological Laboratory
Please note the occurance of one the signs of an "Unsuccessful" pathway acording to Behe, namely the clotting of the entire organism due to an unusually severe infection. However, in the open circulatory pathway of the crab this generally is not a problem. Subsequent modifications to a similar pathway is a likely pathway for the evolution of clotting in animals with closed circulatory systems, here is a decent paper on this.
Page not found – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics
So you see, duplication of genes for both individual proteins and portions of pathways really can account for complex, even "Irreducibly complex", pathways and systems.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by DanskerMan, posted 03-05-2003 12:33 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by DanskerMan, posted 03-13-2003 5:58 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 252 of 367 (33717)
03-05-2003 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Peter
03-05-2003 8:40 AM


Re: Some comments
Dear peter,
quote:
That's not entirely correct. Genetic experiments have shown
that artificailly duplicating a gene can have phenotypic
repurcussions.
PB: That's not in question. Duplications happen and may demonstrate phenotypic alteration within limits. (I mentioned already the duplications observed in resistance). Duplications are included in the GUToB, so I don't see a problem.
Or did you refer to chromosome duplications that have severe repercussions on phenotype? Or something else? If so, please provide the reference.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Peter, posted 03-05-2003 8:40 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Peter, posted 03-05-2003 5:42 PM peter borger has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 253 of 367 (33719)
03-05-2003 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by peter borger
03-05-2003 5:35 PM


Re: Some comments
You said ::
'You immediately have redundancy and the duplication soon
decays.'
Which was the part I was objecting to. But since you agree
that duplication can have phenotypic consequences (so it isn't
a redundancy) then I guess I must have mis-understood your intent
there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by peter borger, posted 03-05-2003 5:35 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by peter borger, posted 03-05-2003 5:49 PM Peter has replied
 Message 256 by derwood, posted 03-06-2003 11:12 AM Peter has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 254 of 367 (33721)
03-05-2003 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Peter
03-05-2003 5:42 PM


Re: Some comments
Hi peter,
I meant as soon as selective constraint disappears.
On the other hand you have to introduce genetic uncertainty.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Peter, posted 03-05-2003 5:42 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Peter, posted 03-10-2003 1:53 AM peter borger has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 367 (33743)
03-06-2003 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Adminnemooseus
03-05-2003 3:01 AM


Re: Some comments - What is Dr. Page's work load?
I have to be honest and say that I'm somewhat perplexed at the intervention I am seeing w/ regards to Dr. Page. This is now the 2nd time in about 2 weeks that an administrator has stepped in on our conversation, and I really don't understand the motive.
I am quite sure that most of us are busy people with lots going on, and secondly we're are all free to respond at will. The only pressure there is (and I've felt it too) is internal pressure to respond so as to not appear to be avoiding the issue. With that said, I personally am confident that most people are honest enough and intelligent enough to realize that no one can or will answer *all* questions posed to them. I certainly don't have time, so I do what I can.
The other thing I've noticed about this board is that there seems to be 10 evo's responding to things versus 2 creationists, for example.
So if Dr. Page is too busy, other people will respond in his place.
But I am still perplexed at the twice intervention now...
Thanks,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-05-2003 3:01 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Admin, posted 03-06-2003 11:37 AM DanskerMan has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 256 of 367 (33757)
03-06-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Peter
03-05-2003 5:42 PM


Wow... was: Re: Some comments
quote:
Peter:
You said ::
'You immediately have redundancy and the duplication soon
decays.'
Which was the part I was objecting to. But since you agree
that duplication can have phenotypic consequences (so it isn't
a redundancy) then I guess I must have mis-understood your intent
there.
Indeed, Borger's comments are off base. It seems that, like "non-random", Borger's definition of 'redundancy' is at odds with those in the field. I have cited a couple of times now a paper that experimentally duplicates a HOX gene. the result is not mere redundancy, the result is an alteration of phenotype.
Gene action, it seems, escapes nearly all anti-evolutionists.
As for my 'work load' and discussions thereof, though it is, frankly, nobody's business, is just as large as anyone elses. I do, however, have the flexibility to work - when I am not in class - when and where I want to, and so I often work at home or late in the evenings (frequent insomnia). Because of my work habits - I tend to work all the way through a project all at once - I find it difficult to concentrate on larger projects in small bits - such as between classes or during office hours - and so tend to waste such time perusing the internet. I must say, however, that I do not put as much time into posts as some seem to believe. For example, gone are the days that I would take the time to write up well-developed, proof-read, referenced, lengthy posts. Such things DID take up way too much time, and it was usually for naught - the person I replied to typically ignored most of it or blew it off, or the 'moderators' took offense to some other post of mine and deleted the whole thing.
I don't think that would happen here, but still I do not have the time - nor the desire - to engage in such 'debate' anymore. I do, after all, have a day job...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Peter, posted 03-05-2003 5:42 PM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-06-2003 12:29 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 287 by peter borger, posted 03-11-2003 12:21 AM derwood has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 257 of 367 (33758)
03-06-2003 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by DanskerMan
03-06-2003 9:15 AM


Re: Some comments - What is Dr. Page's work load?
But I am still perplexed at the twice intervention now...
Let me explain again.
You ask many questions and seem completely uninterested in the answers. You seem engaged more in a search for the rotten core of evolution than in understanding it. It's like you're going through a barrel picking up one after another ripened apple and saying, "No, that one's not rotten," then tossing it aside without savoring it or even giving it any consideration. In other words, you seem uninterested in good information, you're only looking for the bad stuff. For instance, you jumped on Scott's not knowing something like it was the fatal weakness of evolution when science couldn't make any progress if there weren't tons that we didn't know, both as individuals and as a community. You seem hyper-skeptical about everything without any reason or justification, for instance, gene duplication. Scott, an evolutionist, gave you loads of information and you didn't accept any of it. Peter Borger, a creationist, also told you it happens. Why don't you ask Peter Borger the same questions you were asking Scott?
If you're really interested in the details that you keep asking about then try to make it appear that you're interested in and understand the answers. And if you're not interested then stop wasting people's time. There are many evolutionists here who are glad to explain evolution to those seeking to understand it, but that doesn't seem your goal.
If that's not actually the case then perhaps you could try to make it seem less like you're on a witch hunt. There's nothing wrong with not accepting evolution, or with being very skeptical about evolution, but at least be honest when you ask the question about why you're asking it.
The other thing I've noticed about this board is that there seems to be 10 evo's responding to things versus 2 creationists, for example.
It always seems that way because of the nature of the Creationist position. Creationism is divided into a multiplicity of viewpoints, while there is only one theory of evolution. Since all evolutionists share essentially the same view, they can all argue the same point. Creationists, on the other hand, can rarely provide support for each other because they all have different views. TC does not agree with TB does not agree with PB does not agree with WMScott does not agree with LRP and so forth.
Added by edit: By the way, it would equally objectionable for someone to ask detailed religious questions as if interested in getting into the nitty-gritty, but to give those answers very short shrift after someone put in a lot of effort, make what appears to be little to no effort to comprehend what has been explained, and in fact to treat them dismissively. If you're in learning mode, then stick with learning mode. If you're in challenging mode, then stick with challenging mode. Don't ask what look to be sincerely interested questions only to ignore most of the answer and attack what you think are weaknesses. It's a kind of bait and switch tactic that most people don't appreciate.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by DanskerMan, posted 03-06-2003 9:15 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by DanskerMan, posted 03-06-2003 10:13 PM Admin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024