The Origin of Novelty

What "known process of duplication? Duplication produces damage or is neutral according to actual current observations. To base a "known process" on the circular reasoning of evolution makes no sense, nothing at all.A) Because we know that beneficial coding duplications exist, we know that these genes are duplicated
B) Because we can see that these genes are duplicated, it is a known process that beneficial coding duplications exist.How dumb is that?Let's see an actual Drosophila or E.Coli example of a beneficial duplication whereby both copies are coding and yet the mutation gains fitness in nature. Where the original population definitely did not have the duplication, yet the subsequent population has it. This would add something to your argument. Razd had a good one from E.Coli experiments, but even that wasn't quite conclusive due to the silent non-coding nature of the original gene, and the loss of fitness under natural osmosis conditions. Its no process, its the appearance of baramins , as opposed to the chemical appearance of a common "bacterial" ancestor. We both believe in this sudden appearance of life, and subsequent evolution. Which view does the Antarctic Fish favor? Have you got any biological reasons to favor the evolving of paralogs over the appearance of a baramin? Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

That is the evidence. The nested hierarchy is the basic foundation of all evidence that supports evolution. All evidence is just a different example of the same theme. For example, a transitional fossils that evidences evolution will be one that fits into the nested hierarchy. A transitional fossil that violates the nested hierarchy (e.g. a bird to mammal transitional) would falsify evolution.

Ok, in this thread I was hoping that evolutionists could come up with some evidence from DNA that would support the common ancestor view over the baramin view, but would love to discuss fossils on another thread someday soon, there have already been too many side -discussions on Bolder-Dash' thread.

The ones we observe happening in the lab and in modern populations. You need to support this claim. Please show that every duplication that has ever happened is either deleterious or neutral. Already given to you. The cit+ mutation in E. coli is a perfect example. We could also cite lac+ revertants:

quote:

---

In a phenomenon referred to as "adaptive mutation," a population of bacterial cells with a mutation in the lac operon (lac-) accumulates Lac+ revertants during prolonged exposure to selective growth conditions (lactose). Evidence was provided that selective conditions do not increase the mutation rate but instead favor the growth of rare cells with a duplication of the leaky lac allele. A further increase in copy number (amplification) improves growth and increases the likelihood of a sequence change by adding more mutational targets to the clone (cells and lac copies per cell). These duplications and amplifications are described here.
Multiple pathways of selected gene amplification during adaptive mutation - PubMed

---

In this case, the bacteria are starved in the presence of lactose. Duplication of the leaky lac gene and subsequent mutation of those duplications results in a bacteria that is adapted to growth on lactose containing media.

Well, apparently you wanted to talk dishonest nonsense. I really don't know why, that's a question for you. Well, the same kind of evidence that links "baramins" also links things that creationists deny are baramins. So what are you going to do? Are you going to say: "OK, I'll admit the evidence that links this species with that species, fine, they're a baramin, and I'll admit the evidence that links this genus with that genus, that's fine, they're a baramin, but when exactly the same kind of evidence links this family with that family, I'll deny that they're related"?On what basis would you do so, except that you want one thing to be true but not the other? So apart from the fact that all the genetic evidence supports common descent, you haven't seen much evidence that the genetic evidence supports common descent.

Hey, why don't you stop making stuff up about "current observations" of which you are completely ignorant, and instead read Brown, Todd and Rosenweig, Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment? Which is an actual current observation and not one of the hallucinations in your head.

And are you seriously trying to pretend that they haven't? That is amusing.

Hi, Mindspawn. I should have used the word "effect" instead of "phenotype," since my example was actually an example of genotype complexity. Silly mistake.Complexity (whatever it is) is an "effect," not a "cause." Note that the previous sentence is a axiomatic: it holds for any standard definition of the word "complexity" as used in the context of the evolution/creation debate. It doesn't matter what "complexity" means for the sake of my argument, so we don't have to discuss that at all. The "amount" of complexity (whatever it is) is just an observation. For example, if we decide on a definition for "complexity," we might be able to rank a set of species, A-Z, by their complexity. Some are "more complex," and some are "less complex."We can then come up with hypotheses to explain the differences in complexity. For simplicity, let's call them two possible mechanisms: evolution and creation.

• My hypothesis is that, if two species differ in complexity, the differences are due to evolution. In other words, evolution can explain any differences in complexity between species.
  ​
• Your hypothesis is that, if two species differ in complexity, the difference might be due to either evolution or creation, depending on the exact situation. In other words, evolution can only explain some differences in complexity between species, and creation explains the others.

So, my hypothesis has 1 mechanism, while yours has 2. That means mine is more parsimonious.Now, if you could show that your hypothesis explains the evidence better than mine does, then parsimony won't matter, because explanatory power trumps parsimony.In an effort to determine this, I tried to come up with ways in which your hypothesis could make some unique predictions, and thereby demonstrate its superiority, but you mostly dismissed them because the models I mentioned were too specific for your tastes.So, as we currently sit in our conversation, your hypothesis doesn't make any unique predictions. Instead of trying to make and test those predictions, you have attempted to discredit the idea that my hypothesis is more parsimonious.Specifically, your argument has been that our one mechanism is only able to explain some of the differences in complexity. For this to fly, it's necessary for you to demonstrate this limitation somehow, either by showing how the mechanism is inhibited in the case of apparent* increases in complexity, or by showing how a different mechanism is better at explaining the apparent increases in complexity than evolution is. *A "apparent increase" is any difference in complexity that would require complexity to increase if evolution were the explanation. Obviously, under your hypothesis, it wouldn't be an actual increase, but just another difference.Your arguments so far have focused on insisting that evolutionary mechanisms are inhibited in some way. But, this tactic would require you to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of complexity increases via evolutionary mechanisms, which is, as you surely know, a highly dubious proposal. I suggest that you instead concentrate on developing a way to show that your "creationary" mechanism works better. I already tried, and didn't get much traction, so I'll leave it to you now.

Chimpanzees - and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees). The DNA of chimps is 99% the same as ours. The molecular genetic clock suggests the separation from our common ancestor was about 6 million years ago.The shared primate features are obvious. From the opposable digits, to the facial/skull topography is obvious close relation. Then further away we have other mammals, with shared characteristics such as mammalian glands, possession of fur/hair. Then further back still fewer shared traits with our reptilian ancestors - but which still include things like pentadactyl limbs (shared by all tetrapods) as well as inherited horrors such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve.Then further back with even fewer inherited characteristics from our fish ancestors - but still sharing the vertebrate, central nervous system (and not now the recurrent laryngeal nerve - which came about through development of gill arches).THIS is what is meant by nested hierarchical characteristics. Each step from fish----->amphibian----->reptile------>mammal (then within the class mammalia to primates and the species human) carries the baggage from before with adaptions.Our five fingers came from the bones in the fishes fin of the ancestor that gave rise to the amphibians, our eyes came from the suboptimal mutation that happened long long ago in the vertebrate branch (but not in the cephalopods - you still didn't answer that one from my previous post - any suggestions why an omnipotent God would fuck up a vast array of vertebrate designs like that? - In fact it gets worse - because cats hunt in the dark a lot and need light so they have evolved the tapetum - a reflecting layer at the back of the eye to reflect and concentrate light. So God fucked up the vertebrate eye and then had to hurriedly come up with some 'improvement' to sit along side the fucked-up cat eye with it's badly wired optic nerve - how the hell does that work? That's like saying we won't put airbags in all cars to protect life just some of them - the ones we decide not to put air bags into we'll sell a spongy vest for the driver to wear instead.....madness!! No human designer would last 5 minutes in the business with a dork attitude like that!).Anyone with either engineering knowledge or good knowledge of the biological ecosystem knows immediately that the pattern of animals (past and present) on our planet is represented by a hierarchical system - in fact it was described by Linnaeus as such. Since his time people have strived to explain this (even before Darwin did).The fact that this planet has a hierarchical nested development is indisputable - you'd have to be a halfwit to not see it. What is the bigger question is what leads to nested hierarchical systems? The ToE explains it perfectly - even making several falsifiable statements you can use to blow evolution away if you want to try:
1. No examples of late-developed organisms should ever be found in an earlier eon before their hierarchical development (to quote the great biologist J B S Haldane "No fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian"2. No 'jumping' across lines of inherited features - such as mammals suddenly acquiring a 'correctly-wired' cephalopod eye. Evolution has no access to mechanisms to achieve this.Evidence of either of the examples scenarios above would utterly and instantly destroy the ToE. Scientists as well as creationists have been looking for that silver bullet for 150 years - never been found - what does that tell you??On the other hand there is NO reason for a powerful God to limit his work to 'hierarchal lines' - we don't do that as human engineers. Nor would he be limited to not being able to have all his creations up at once. Why did he not want trilobites to be here now, or why can't rabbits be in the pre-Cambrian? The ToE beautifully gives the answer....the God hypothesis is found utterly wanting.Not only is there no actual evidence for God even existing, but the myriad of evidence we DO have on our planet leads totally to adaption and evolution by mutation and natural selection. It is the ONLY answer that has ever made sense when applied to the evidence.When are you joining the flat-earth society by the way?

You would have to define what the baramin view is, the morphological criteria that are used to separate baramins, the genetic criteria that are used to determine if two species are in the same baramin, etc. From what I have seen, baramins are nothing more than a religious belief and have no use in comparing shared and derived characteristics.

Are you saying we are most related to chimps because of our dna or because of our shared features? Its not clear what you are getting at here?

If you don't like that, let's split the difference. What could be more fair?I share 99% of my DNA with chimps, and you share 99% of your features with the chimps.Fair enough?

"But I don't understand. Are you saying he's dead because he has no pulse, or because his heart's stopped beating?"

Of course neither fact proves that there's a genetic relatedness, only a design similarity, which is all the ToE has for ANYTHING it claims -- the appearance of similarity that is turned by word magic into genetic relatedness which is then called "fact" just because you BELIEVE that's what it means. Biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the human race.

If you don't understand it by now, I guess you never will.