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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How novel features evolve #2
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 361 of 402 (677387)
10-29-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Tangle
10-29-2012 4:24 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
Geneticists [not evolutionists, whatever they are] established that a large part of our DNA did not code for proteins. It was labelled 'junk' to differentiate it from the parts that did seem useful.
If memory serves, "junk" DNA was first used to describe processed pseudogenes, not non-coding DNA in general. In the case of processed pseudogenes, it is quite obvious that they do not possess function related to their DNA sequence given the accumulation of frame shift and other mutations that knockout protein production.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Tangle, posted 10-29-2012 4:24 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 362 of 402 (677389)
10-29-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 9:31 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
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.
Let's do the math then. According to the chimp genome paper there are 35 million substituions and 5 million indels that separate humans and chimps, or 40 million mutations total. If we assume that half occurred in each lineage that puts us at 20 million in the human lineage.
So what is the observed human mutation rate? According to this paper that directly compared parent's DNA to offspring's DNA, the mutation rate is 50 to 100 mutations per individual per generation. This allows us to estimate the number of mutations that have occured in the human population over the last 5 million years since the chimp and human lineages diverged.
The math is pretty straightfoward. With a mutation rate 50 per individual per generation, a generation time of 25 years, and a constant population of just 100,000 that gives us 200,000 generations with 50*100,000 mutations per generation for a total of 1x10^12 mutations, or 1 trillion mutations. In comparison, there are only 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, or just 0.004% of all the mutations that have occured in the human population over the last 5 million years using the most conservative of assumptions.
So what makes you think that the observed mutation rate is incapable of producing the differences we see between humans and other species?
The duplications can't be proven . . .
Do you accept that duplications do occur naturally?
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.
Actually, it is quite easy to prove. The DNA differences seen between humans and chimps is responsible for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. Perhaps you could highlight those DNA differences that you think evolution could not produce?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 9:31 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 3:51 AM Taq has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 363 of 402 (677392)
10-29-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Taq
10-29-2012 1:13 PM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
You are contradicting yourself. If the Bible is proven and accurate then you should be able to provide the evidence that species were created by a supernatural deity. You should be able to evidence your claims independent of what the Bible says.
I don't think this is a contradiction. mindspawn might consider the Bible to be supernaturally accurate and therefore not demand evidence for everything in the Bible. While that would not be scientific, it would not be contradictory.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Taq, posted 10-29-2012 1:13 PM Taq has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 364 of 402 (677394)
10-29-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 9:49 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
quote:
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.
Most IDists are Old Earth Creationists, so they wouldn't assume a creation 6000 years ago.
quote:
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.
Well no. They predicted that ALL of it would be useful. Some evolutionists ALSO felt that all or almost all of the genome would be useful, because of the cost of useless DNA. And on the evidence in most species a very large proportion does NOT seem to have any use. So it is WAY too soon to say that the IDists were right, and in fact it is far more likely that they were badly wrong.
quote:
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.
WHAT "alternative ID explanations" are being ignored ? Isn't the ID movement just claiming that it's all useful ? Despite the evidence ? How is molecular biology being held up by looking at the most promising areas for function instead of just assuming that it all has a function because the IDists say so ?
quote:
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.
The reason why ID is not taken seriously is because the evidence is against it. That's true science for you.
quote:
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)
I hope that the day when ID is established as a tyrannical dogma well never happen.
Edited by Admin, : Fix first quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 9:49 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 365 of 402 (677470)
10-30-2012 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Percy
10-29-2012 8:18 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
I was suggesting that you suspend participation in this thread while discussing the Bible's qualifications as a science book in a new thread, not that you participate in both threads simultaneously. Also, there's no time limit on replies. Take as much time as you need. Make your goal to post x messages per week, not to reply to everyone every week.
It's interesting that you said, "I would love to discuss the proof for the bible being a supernatural book," because that's not what you originally said back in Message 341. What you said there was that, "I haven't got evidence, except that the bible is a proven and accurate book..." A thread where you tried to present evidence that the Bible has supernatural origins would be very interesting, but concerning your original claim, if the Bible really is "proven and accurate" then you need only seek recourse to evidence relevant to this thread that proved the Bible accurate.
Except that there isn't any Biblical evidence relevant to this thread. The Bible doesn't declare that the development of novel features is impossible. It says that creatures reproduce according to their kind, and so does evolution. The Bible says that cows beget cows and crows beget crows, and so does evolution.
But evolution says something additional, which is that what we know as cows and what we know as crows changes over time. Cows have begat cows since the beginning of time, but what is a cow has changed. The Bible makes no comment on this, and there can be no Biblically based objection.
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.
You're only half right. You haven't got evidence, we have, we win. Evolution is a very widely accepted theory because of evidence, not assumptions. You're ignoring the evidence that mutations occur (indeed, they must occur since the DNA copying of reproduction is imperfect and we even know the mutation rates for many organisms), and then you're ignoring the implications. We have evidence of mutations and selection, while you only have assumptions you mistakenly think are Biblically based
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 thought it was already mentioned in this thread, but maybe not, so I'll say it again. Evolution definitely does not say that the less complex precedes the more complex.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Percy, posted 10-29-2012 8:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 10-30-2012 8:22 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 373 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 4:19 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 366 of 402 (677472)
10-30-2012 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Taq
10-29-2012 1:13 PM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
You are contradicting yourself. If the Bible is proven and accurate then you should be able to provide the evidence that species were created by a supernatural deity. You should be able to evidence your claims independent of what the Bible says.
In a court of law, do we find people guilty because the District Attorney says so? Or does the DA have to provide evidence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Taq, posted 10-29-2012 1:13 PM Taq has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 367 of 402 (677473)
10-30-2012 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Taq
10-29-2012 1:13 PM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
Not at all. We are making predictions of what we should and should not see in the field of biology if evolution is true. For example, if the carboxylesterase gene went through a recent duplication then we should see a lack of divergence between the two genes. This is a testable prediction. It is a scientific prediction.
So what predictions does creationism/ID make, and why? How do we test for these mechanisms as it relates to the emergence of novel features?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Taq, posted 10-29-2012 1:13 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2012 9:08 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 374 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 4:26 PM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 368 of 402 (677474)
10-30-2012 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Taq
10-29-2012 1:46 PM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
Let's do the math then. According to the chimp genome paper there are 35 million substituions and 5 million indels that separate humans and chimps, or 40 million mutations total. If we assume that half occurred in each lineage that puts us at 20 million in the human lineage.
So what is the observed human mutation rate? According to this paper that directly compared parent's DNA to offspring's DNA, the mutation rate is 50 to 100 mutations per individual per generation. This allows us to estimate the number of mutations that have occured in the human population over the last 5 million years since the chimp and human lineages diverged.
The math is pretty straightfoward. With a mutation rate 50 per individual per generation, a generation time of 25 years, and a constant population of just 100,000 that gives us 200,000 generations with 50*100,000 mutations per generation for a total of 1x10^12 mutations, or 1 trillion mutations. In comparison, there are only 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, or just 0.004% of all the mutations that have occured in the human population over the last 5 million years using the most conservative of assumptions.
So what makes you think that the observed mutation rate is incapable of producing the differences we see between humans and other species?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Taq, posted 10-29-2012 1:46 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 11:09 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 369 of 402 (677493)
10-30-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 3:01 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
mindspawn writes:
Well this particular thread is your chance to prove that evolution and not devolution works.
What you mean is that this is our chance to prove evolution to *you*. It's already been proven within science (in this context, "prove" means provide sufficiently convincing evidence that a strong consensus forms within the relevant scientific discipline). Since you refuse to accept even the most non-controversial and basic evidence, such as that for mutation rates (for a high level outline of what we think we know, see the Wikipedia article on Mutation Rates), I can't see how persuading you would ever be possible. If you can't see how two nearly identical genes must mean there was a recent duplication because any significant passage of time would have meant each would have accumulated a number of mutations absent in the other, then convincing you of something like the introduction of novelty that involves more subtle evidence is beyond well nigh impossible.
Without increased complexity there is no evolution...
Actually, without increased complexity there would be no us (or reptiles, flowers, amphibians, grass, fish or much of any life at all beyond Archaea), but there would still be evolution. Evolution doesn't require complexity. Complexity, as I said before, is often a result of competition. Selection chooses the best competitors.
There is one way I can think of in which complexity could be inherent in evolution. As environments slowly change and organisms evolve new adaptations, the old adaptations for the original environment might remain in some vestigial form. For example, some species of cave fish have vestigial eyes. It could be argued that species that possess both new and vestigial adaptations are more complex than ancestor species that had only the old adaptation. It can take a vestigial trait a great deal of time to disappear, and it is always at risk for being adapted via evolution to a role other than its original function.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 3:01 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2012 12:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 375 by mindspawn, posted 10-31-2012 8:57 AM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 370 of 402 (677500)
10-30-2012 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 3:26 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
quote:
ID with a recent creation would predict:
I nite that your predictions are mainly based on a "recent creation", and since most of the leaders of the ID movement seem to reject that it seems more than a little misleading to say "ID predicts" when ID isn't even committed to the most important assumption underlying your predictions.
quote:
1) ID predicts that there will be more extinctions than new species. (a reducing number of species over time).
That may be what is happening now, although the obvious effects of humanity - such as habitat loss - make it questionable how far it can be extrapolated into the past.
Moreover, the fossil record does not support it in anyway, indeed without the assumption of a Young Earth is would seem completely untenable.
quote:
2) Genomes will show fixity with no increasing length of functional DNA except when damaging. (devolution)
This seems to be false due to gene duplication and polyploidy alone.
quote:
3) Most so-called mutations will be found to have always been in the genome.
This appears to be false, and arguably contradicts your Flood beliefs. It would require a maximum of 14 alleles in any species. Bacterial experiments also show antibiotic resistance being acquired by mutation,
quote:
4) Many ancient fossils will be found to also have signs of recent life (DNA survives, carbon dated, found in human habitats)
Seems to be false.
quote:
5) there will be an increasing number of modern animals found fossilized in ancient layers.
Seems to be false.
quote:
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.)
Seems to be false. For instance, while the acquisition of antibiotic resistance often incurs a loss of fitness in other respectis it seems to be common for further mutations to recover at least some of that fitness while retaining the resistance.
It's really not looking good for ID

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 3:26 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 371 of 402 (677521)
10-30-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 3:51 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
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.
If ID were science it would actually demonstrate that this was the case instead of just assuming it.
The "evolving" from a common ancestor is a huge assumption . . .
No, it isn't. It is a CONCLUSION drawn from evidence. We have the transitional fossils. We have the shared genetic markers such as shared ERV's and shared pseudogenes. We have different Ka/Ks ratios for coding regions and pseudogenes which evidences selection and random mutations. It is NOT assumed.
Regarding 50 per individual per generation, are you specifically referring to changed base-pairs in offspring that were not visible in both parents?
Yes. It would appear that they filtered out the indels for that specific paper so, if I am reading the paper correctly, the 50 refers to base substitutions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 3:51 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by mindspawn, posted 10-31-2012 11:10 AM Taq has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 372 of 402 (677533)
10-30-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Percy
10-30-2012 8:22 AM


Hopefull not too meta...
If you can't see how two nearly identical genes must mean there was a recent duplication because any significant passage of time would have meant each would have accumulated a number of mutations absent in the other, then convincing you of something like the introduction of novelty that involves more subtle evidence is beyond well nigh impossible.
I've been chewing on this, and I think that mindspawn's YEC position is a combination of 'there hasn't been any significant passage of time' and the mutations we discuss would have been selected against because any mutation in functional DNA would be selected against.
I think the latter argument has been dealt with effectively despite mindspaw's slowness in recognizing it. As for the significant amount of time, mindspawn relies strictly on his interpretation of the Bible as his reason for rejecting that man has been around for an enormous amount of time. MS absolutely rejects any kind of dating as is a YEC's wont. We aren't going to be able to deal with that portion in this thread.
It also appears that for mindspawn, "ID" is synonymous with God did it exactly as Genesis describes. I think we can commend him for not playing hide the frisbee.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 10-30-2012 8:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by mindspawn, posted 10-31-2012 9:21 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 373 of 402 (677579)
10-30-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 3:01 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
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.
That would only be the case if what the Bible claims is true. This means that you need to present evidence for these claims. Simply stating "Because the Bible says so" is not going to convince anyone.
As you accurately point out the bible does not declare new novel features impossible,
Who cares? What does the evidence say? That is the important question.
well this particular thread is your chance to prove that evolution and not devolution works. And I haven't seen the proof yet.
I think you have shown that you will not accept anything as proof. Your mind is made up, and that's the end of the discussion.
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.
We have shown that it is not an assumption, but a conclusion drawn from evidence.
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.
Why do you object?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 3:01 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 374 of 402 (677584)
10-30-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 3:26 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
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.
Even if ID is true I don't see how the predictions follow from the premise. Certainly genes can still go through the process of duplication after the design process is over. We observe that DNA recombination occurs in nature without a designer present, so I don't see how a designed organism would be immune from such a naturally occuring process.
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).
We have another ID supporter, Genomicus, who argues just the opposite, that organisms are front loaded to produce increasing biodiversity over time.
) Genomes will show fixity with no increasing length of functional DNA except when damaging. (devolution)
This has already been falsified in that we have observed beneficial mutations that result in beneficial function.
3) Most so-called mutations will be found to have always been in the genome.
Comparisons of parents and offspring shows that this is not true.
4) Many ancient fossils will be found to also have signs of recent life (DNA survives, carbon dated, found in human habitats)
That has nothing to do with ID since ID can be OEC, but it is still not true. No one has found surviving DNA in very ancient fossils.
5) there will be an increasing number of modern animals found fossilized in ancient layers.
No one has ever found a mammal in Cambrian strata.
6) devolution will become the more observed process, the ability of disabled genes and deletions to contribute towards fitness.
How do less fit organisms outcompete more fit organisms within a population? Can you please explain this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 3:26 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by mindspawn, posted 10-31-2012 9:07 AM Taq has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 375 of 402 (677621)
10-31-2012 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Percy
10-30-2012 8:22 AM


Re: adding an extra functional gene
What you mean is that this is our chance to prove evolution to *you*. It's already been proven within science (in this context, "prove" means provide sufficiently convincing evidence that a strong consensus forms within the relevant scientific discipline). Since you refuse to accept even the most non-controversial and basic evidence, such as that for mutation rates (for a high level outline of what we think we know, see the Wikipedia article on Mutation Rates), I can't see how persuading you would ever be possible. If you can't see how two nearly identical genes must mean there was a recent duplication because any significant passage of time would have meant each would have accumulated a number of mutations absent in the other, then convincing you of something like the introduction of novelty that involves more subtle evidence is beyond well nigh impossible.
So that's all you can come up with to prove evolution?? I was expecting way better arguments than this.
Some try to prove evolution by assuming humans and apes had a common ancestor and working out mutation rates from the differences in the two genomes. This is extreme illogical thinking, trying to back up evolution using evolutionary assumptions as an argument.
The 50 mutations per generation is definitely something we can work with. You say I refuse to believe mutation rates, if they are calculated on the assumption that humans/apes evolved, well that is circular reasoning and I will not accept them. If they are based on observed fact without any assumptions, we can work with them. I will deal with this more in my reply to Taq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 10-30-2012 8:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Percy, posted 10-31-2012 9:59 AM mindspawn 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