Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The origin of new genes
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 150 of 164 (569587)
07-22-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
09-22-2006 4:28 AM


New Genes
I need some clarification on how science defines "new genes" and how they believe they emerge in the eukaryote evolution.
Does science believe that all informational genes were packaged in the first multi-cellular organism? Evolution meaning that through reshuffling these genes allowed new innovations that were never used in the past?
Science states that bacteria obtain new genes but not currently documented in our genes. yet it appears it did happen.
Or was it the first multicelled organism had a very few genes, just enough to allow it to function and then through evolution new genes emerged and added to the gene pool of life. This makes more sense since many species did not start out with specialized compartments for organs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 4:28 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 07-22-2010 12:03 PM barbara has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 152 of 164 (569617)
07-22-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by jar
07-22-2010 12:03 PM


Re: New Genes
I'm not a scientists so please understand that I may use the wrong terminology when asking a question.
New information for cells to now make feathers. What is the process for this to be accomplished?
How did it get this information in the first place and how did the cells know after trial and error with this new innovation that it can be permanently imbedded in the germ line for reproduction so feathers remain a fixed trait which would allow all of the varieties of species with feathers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 07-22-2010 12:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Huntard, posted 07-22-2010 1:24 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 154 by jar, posted 07-22-2010 1:38 PM barbara has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 155 of 164 (569628)
07-22-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
07-22-2010 1:38 PM


Re: New Genes
The extinction of the dinosaurs does not make any sense if you insist on believing that it was just random mutations and natural selection. One would expect to see some features of dinosaurs left in all of the species we have today. Am I suppose to believe that a small rodent that lived at the time of the dinosaurs was able to radiate every warm blooded species across the globe based on random mutations and isolation for natural selection to change their appearances in every environment.
it is not possible for one species to do this.
The changeover from the large mammals to the one currently living today does make sense in random mutations and natural selection to occur. However it does not explain how the large mammals emerged in the first place.
I think evolution is weak when trying to explain the whole picture of how species evolved into the next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 07-22-2010 1:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 07-22-2010 2:49 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 157 by AZPaul3, posted 07-22-2010 2:53 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 158 by DrJones*, posted 07-22-2010 3:08 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 159 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2010 3:46 PM barbara has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 160 of 164 (570742)
07-28-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Blue Jay
07-22-2010 3:46 PM


Re: New Genes
Please help me with the math.
There are 50 and 500 billion mutations in humans every generation at a rate of 1/10 of 1% rate 2 to 20 million per year.
Woman are born with 2 million eggs out of which 200 to 300 are viable during the reproduction years. On average 2 children per individual.
Out of 500 billion mutations are actually in the germ line?
Then take those numbers and apply to viable eggs then take natural selection to account 2 children produced on average in a generation.
I don't see how it is possible for humans to be anything but humans in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2010 3:46 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 2:45 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:37 PM barbara has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 163 of 164 (570754)
07-28-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 3:37 PM


Re: New Genes
Thank you!
As you can see I am not a scientist nor am I a creationists. I really have a desire to obtain as many facts as I can to come to my own conclusion. It is very difficult to do when the information is so conflicting from one website to another.
For the person that enjoys insulting people's intelligence is not a way for anyone to want to read your opinion on any subject here and accept your so called belief in yourself that you are more intelligent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 4:51 PM barbara 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