|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The origin of new genes | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If I write the books I can redefine "beneficial mutation"; Please read Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. Let me give you an example of how this works: I redefine "jesus" to mean "devil" Then I say that because of this definition, all christians are praying to the devil. This of course does not make it so, so what is wrong here? I am using one definition for "jesus" and every christian is using a different definition, so what I am really doing by saying that all christians are praying to the devil is equivocating between my definition and that used by christians. Equivocation is the logical fallacy of using two different definitions of words in different parts of the logical structure. What you are doing in making up your own definition of mutation is (1) creating a straw man (a false definition) and then using that to (2) equivocate between your (false) meaning and the (real) meaning used by biologists. This means your argument is invalid, because you are using two different definitions. IF you want to discuss what biologists are talking about THEN you will use the definitions of the terms they use. Otherwise you are talking about something else and PRETENDING that it is about what the biologists are talking about. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So, if I have brown eyes and my child evolves green eyes, is there a mutation? Methinks YES and NO, by the definitions of 'genome' ... Green eyes are known in the human genome, so the question becomes did she inherit an existing green eye gene or acquire a new green eye gene mutation. You have brown eyes, which are dominant, so you could carry a recessive gene for green eyes. We don't know your wife's eye color(s) so beyond this all we can say is that it is entirely possible for the child to inherit an existing gene. Your daughter could also have a new green gene, but to determine that we would need to compare her green gene with other green genes in the genome, and see where the specific genetic changes agree or disagree. Now if they were purple eyes we'd be pretty sure they were a new mutation. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As scientists we’re forced to concede that in all probability, there are no novel alleles in any given gene-pool program. Let's get back to the real world for a minute eh? Perhaps you'd care to tell me how the "IC" system re-evolved in Hall's experiment without a new allele?
Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments The original gene was deleted, and a new - different - system evolved to replace it. Allele removed. Allele replaced. New. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
......Am I to read that 3 page post with all its references, assimilate all that verbage, ... Yes, if you want to debate in good faith.
Again, I see nothing new here (at all). Denial of evidence that contradicts your opinion is not faith, it is quote: Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
First off I find statements like:
Message 108 Please bear my unpoliteness considering his curious slanders against me ("You're not a scientist", etc). I'm a 50 y/o podiatrist (chiropodist in the UK). I highly respect CF's persistence, intelligence, and thoughtful-feedback (before God and man). To be totally irrelevant. First off they are an argument from authority, except here it isn't substantiated except by your say-so. And it's a way of saying "look who I am, my argument must be good" ... or trying to anyway. What you are on these forums is what you post and nothing more.
I ("in good faith") read what I read (in my paranoiac transformation as you've accused me) I said "Denial of evidence that contradicts your opinion is not faith, it is delusion" -- you are free to choose the definition you think suits you best, if you wish to wear those shoes. I've only pointed out the consequences of continued denial.
... and repeat the fallacies that I perceived on that seemingly gross yet pointless thread. You’re welcome to refute these specifically or bash me as totally deluded. The key words are: “pre-built”, “always”, and “robust alleles”. Which of these do you wish to falsify as newly begotten genes or beneficial mutations ? The issue is that a gene was deleted. The function of the gene ceased. There was no “pre-built” response that just started up into operation to replace the function: why? it did not exist in the form necessary to do so. It was not a copy section of the previous gene that mutated either, so it was not a matter of “robust alleles” hiding in wait for such an opportunity. The section of another gene that mutated filled one of the two functions necessary to replace the system disrupted by the deletion of the gene in question. It did not happen right away, because it had to change. Neither does “always” apply, as not all of the bacteria in the study evolved the new gene, mostly they died. After the first mutation there was a second that replaced another part of the original system to metabolize lactose, thus regaining the original ability with a different system than existed before. Now you can hand wave, and label things with new terms of your making, but the fact remains: a gene mutated, it was different than it was before mutation, it increased the ability of the bacteria to survive. More to the point, it replaced information that had been removed. Therefore it added information. In order to show that information was not added, you have to now show that it was not lost in the experiment: that all the bacteria survived on lactose even with the destroyed gene. Good luck on your quest; despite the improbability of finding one, it seems that this somehow means a lot to you. Why are you chasing a phantom? Enjoy. ps - calling a post "that seemingly gross yet pointless thread" while not making any attempt to show that this is the case, or in any way addressing a single point on the post to even show you read it is intellectual dishonesty. Edited by RAZD, : added ps 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Can't you tell when your leg is being pulled? Another possibility is "trolling"Internet troll - Wikipedia Always a possibility with any post. One can only deal with the position as presented however -- no matter how ludicrous it is. One can't help wondering however who the joke is really on eh? The one's who take his words as being ridiculous and rebut the nonesense, or the ones who take his words as truth and support him against the evils of evolution ...
... named in honor of Barry Hall? ... Or Dave BarryDave Barry, humor columnist and author of Insane City Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well, of course alleles function as genes, but genes do not function as alleles. Try this: allele : gene :: oak : tree. You forgot one ... phillip : troll compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Wounded King and rockondon,
Similarly tetrachromacy is a fascinating phenomenon, and it is easy to see how better colour discrimination could be beneficial in an everyday sense, but isn't necessarily an evolutionarily beneficial mutation, i.e. one that improves reproductive success. My understanding is that tetrachromacy in humans is not due to a new mutation per se, rather it is associated with the color-blind mutation in females. That females with this condition are usually related to colorblind males. I believe it is normally a shift in the wavelength range for the red cones towards orange. Of course birds have four to six cones, and human ancestors apparently lost some because they were nocturnal and they weren't necessary at the time. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024