Summations Only

I have been trying to see your evidence that the duplicate came after the single gene, and still feel you have given no evidence of this. The lack of sequence divergence just means the genes are the same. I have never doubted you on this. You may not be able to see this, but you are basing your entire argument on the assumption that the duplicated gene was the later mutation, with no evidence put forward yet.

Post deleted, due to duplication. The duplication followed the original in this case .....lolEdited by mindspawn, : Duplicate post

"Yes. If they were not the result of duplication then they would have many differences in sequence. The lack of variation between the sequences is the evidence for a recent duplication"I believe its possible God created the original with two identical genes. This original with the two genes is the stronger of the two varieties, and therefore survived the pesticides.I see nothing in your evidence that says the population without the duplicate came before the population with the duplicate, except your presumption that evolution is more logical than intelligent design.If you can show me proof that the population without the duplicate was on earth first, you would have a point. Otherwise you are trying to prove a process of evolution based on the assumption that the duplicate evolved which is frankly illogical.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Thanks Percy , appreciated

I haven't got evidence , except that the bible is a proven and accurate book, which is of topic for this thread.Neither have you got evidence for your evolutionary process because you are using the assumption of evolution to prove evolution. You are not taking into account the possibility of ID, which gives an alternative possibility that the duplicate came first. Percy is right that I didn't respond to your one point. You say that these two genes have few differing neutral mutations. This is often another point of contention between ID's and evolutionists. To what extent are these neutral mutations truly neutral, when some so-called "junk-DNA" has recently been found to have a function. ie if organisms are not collecting neutral mutations , but those so-called neutral mutations have always had a specific function and are a core part of the DNA, then this would mean there is far more stability in the DNA than you predict. This stability would explain the lack of diversity between the two genes over long periods of time. Functions of Junk DNA Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : trying to learn how to quoteEdited by mindspawn, : getting quotes rightEdited by mindspawn, : correcting my post

Percy, that is funny. All I need to do is start more threads? I cannot keep up with the current ones, so that just is not going to happen. I would love to discuss the proof for the bible being a supernatural book, I would love to discuss radiometric dating, but its just impossible time wise.In this thread we are discussing proof for evolution, can organisms evolve complexity, and develop additional genes with new functions (that add fitness)? This is the question I have been asking. when I look at chromosomal organizations of modern organisms it speaks to me of a perfect design with a few mutations. When an evolutionist looks at the same DNA sequence they will see an organism in a state of evolving, with many mutations.Both of us haven't got evidence for the process involved, evolutionists use the assumption of evolution as proof of evolution. ie they use the assumption that many areas of the genome are in a mutated state and there are a lot of mutations occurring. and then in many cases assume the less complex precedes the more complex. Under ID assumptions the more complex precedes the less complex in most cases, with increased fitness sometimes occurring when a problematic gene is disabled (eg Duffy gene)

Theodoric, you are missing the point of this thread, where is the proof for essential evolutionary processes? without added genes with new functions we would all be bacteria, where's your proof of this process? Is it a myth? At least I have a religious book to back up my beliefs, you have a few unproven ideas. You can't use evolution to prove evolution, that lacks science.even the lack in evolutionary circles to assume both ID and evolution are valid hypotheses and then to look at DNA sequences with both view equally in mind, is showing non-scientific bias.

Tangle, Religious belief is not always on an intellectual level. I enjoy the intellect and value the intellect, but understand the inability for humans to be perfectly unbiased. There is a deeper and more accurate determination of right and wrong called our spirit. When our spirit is in line with the truth we have peace in our hearts, its a communication far more accurate than the intellect because we are in touch with a higher being, Jesus. So I know in my heart that God reveals himself through the bible, and it does help that on an intellectual level the bible is increasingly proved to be accurate from a historical point of view, and does also have prophecies recorded before historical events that unfold exactly as predicted. This is all off-topic but it just may mean something to any reader seeking for peace in their hearts.So to answer your question clearly, I have confirmation on a deeper level than intellect regarding the truth of the bible, and so have not examined the bible from an intellectual level, I've accepted its truth and this has been confirmed throughout my life. With answered prayer, healings, history confirming the bible, peace in my heart, principles of the bible working accurately. In every sphere, including intellect, the bible continues to be confirmed truth to me.Edited by mindspawn, : Answering the question put to meEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I understand we get mutations, but not as often as the theory of evolution believes in. Evolutionists have assumed a lot of DNA has no function, and yet these sections have been found to have a function, which believers in Intelligent Design have been saying all along.Far From ‘Junk,’ DNA Dark Matter Proves Crucial to Health - The New York Times

yes PaulK I agree they shouldn't be quite as dogmatic, mutations are quite common. But I don't see any proof that they are common enough to assume every gene would reflect them.The duplications can't be proven as such unless you have an initial population that is devoid of that mutation, and then they are subsequently observed with mutations. This can be observed in humans, because our defects are the most studied. You can get a new mutation appearing in offspring that obviously neither parent had. This is a genuine mutation. To contribute as an explanation for how complex organisms exist today, the mutation would have to improve fitness, and add a gene with a function. To find proof of this is near impossible because its difficult to reproduce evolutionary time frames in the laboratory.

that's the problem. ID's , using the biblical concept of creation ~6000 years ago, assumed that most of the genome was created like that. So when the term "junk DNA" was introduced 40 years ago, the predictive quality of the ID assumption is that these areas of the genome would be found to be useful. And they (I say that because I have only recently become involved) were right. Without looking at the alternative ID explanations for anything seen in the genome, the entire science of molecular biology is being unnecessarily slowed down and it is very frustrating to observe. True science should now interpret each genome sequenced under both ID and evolutionist assumptions and see which one fits reality of current observed genomes better. There just are not enough scientists who take ID as a serious possibility this is why the evidence is slow to establish.Do we have to wait another 40 years before science discovers that genetic entropy is more observed than evolution? With evolutionists kicking against it every step of the way? (rhetorical question)

Good advice about the posting, thanks. For now I will just stick to the two threads. regarding the bible's relevance to this thread, well the bible does say that certain biological life-forms were created ~6000 years ago, which eliminates the necessary timeframes for evolution. I have no objection to evolutionary processes being observed since then. As you accurately point out the bible does not declare new novel features impossible, if found to occur this does not threaten my belief. I actually do believe in rapid micro-evolution, adaptive variation, large changes through new allele frequencies and devolution. well this particular thread is your chance to prove that evolution and not devolution works. And I haven't seen the proof yet. Can you prove the process without assuming evolution in the first place? To state that certain observed genes or base pairs or other parts of the genome have evolved or mutated and work from that is in most cases merely assumption. I did read that before and am very aware of it whenever I mention more complexity. Its not a mistake that I make. I know that evolution believes in both processes but its the increased complexity part of evolution that allows for life to go beyond simple bacteria. Without increased complexity there is no evolution, so its only this part of the process that I object to , and this is an essential part of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the appearance of modern life-forms. I am very aware that according to evolution , for example modern bacteria, have been under-going the same evolutionary pressures for the same time, and yet remain similar to the original due to maintained fitness.

Not everything in the bible is proven yet on a scientific basis. I was thinking more of prophecies that have been proven to be written before they are fulfilled, and also archaeological evidence for much of the bible. But thats all off topic for this thread. The fact that the bible is accurate on some issues, gives me confidence that it will be accurate on other issues.

If ID is true, the duplications were always there and the carboxylesterase genes will continue to stay as they are with rare occasional mutations in future. (fixity in genes)ID with a recent creation would predict:
1) ID predicts that there will be more extinctions than new species. (a reducing number of species over time).
2) Genomes will show fixity with no increasing length of functional DNA except when damaging. (devolution)
3) Most so-called mutations will be found to have always been in the genome.
4) Many ancient fossils will be found to also have signs of recent life (DNA survives, carbon dated, found in human habitats)
5) there will be an increasing number of modern animals found fossilized in ancient layers.
6) devolution will become the more observed process, the ability of disabled genes and deletions to contribute towards fitness.(this last point is not common to all ID's but those who believe in ID followed by devolution.)The only exception I can think of is when chromosomal duplication produces dormant sections. this may slow down cellular reproduction, but increases hardiness to plants, and even regarding this point I'm not sure of the extent to which God created plants like that. The duplications even in plants could have always been there for hardiness sake, I'm open to evidence both ways regarding the lengthy genomes of plants, and have no objection to duplications increasing fitness provided they can be proven to be subsequent.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

regarding the chimp/human mutations, ID assumes they were created like that. ie God created extra base-pairs in certain genes of the ape, and extra base-pairs in certain genes of the human. The "evolving" from a common ancestor is a huge assumption and you cannot use the assumption of evolving to establish convincing data when speaking to a creationist about rates of mutation.Regarding 50 per individual per generation, are you specifically referring to changed base-pairs in offspring that were not visible in both parents?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.