You haven't looked. There are plenty of examples of situations in which duplication can be advantageous or neutral on arrival. One of the things you could do to test this is to artificially duplicate genes in certain environments, and measure the effects on fitness. It's been done in E. Coli, and the researchers found 115 cases in which amplification alone could increase fitness in toxic environments. In most strains, there was no loss of fitness in the absence of toxins (the duplications would then be neutral).
You make a good point here regarding amplification. This isn't a novel feature, but extra coding genes are certainly a support for the basic processes of your view. I don't like genetic manipulation as proof of natural processes, but if they replicate real processes of nature then fair enough the information can be useful. Just for my information can you supply a link, thanks.
Both can happen. Think of AMY1 in humans. Here's what's interesting for you. You say:
The fact that you freely admit that the high copy numbers could have been there already, without showing proof that they were not there in the original population, kinda makes your whole point redundant. The same logic applies to AMY1.
That would be drift. It's a slow process. If you want a model of humans beginning 6,500 ya with the maximum known number of copies (15) so as to avoid any duplication, then you need a much higher mutation rate than we actually have, coupled with some positive selection on a decrease in AMY1 copies. You'd have the same problem with building up the number of copies by duplication on that time scale.
Another good point. But if there was original variety then this would explain it (say 4 DNA strands, each containing a different copy number) . And another explantion is that there are certain places in the genome that are extremely vulnerable to rapid mutations. ie immunity and antibody genes. Whether these are duplications or deletions, the changes are known to occur rapidly where there are high copy numbers. I'm open to the math if you would like to delve further into the accuracy of your point, and back it up with actual mutation rates etc.
No. The chances of an intelligent designer using an antifreeze protein encoded by a gene that looks like a duplicate of another are slim, given the options available. There are many other antifreeze proteins already in the life system, and our knowledge of artificial proteins indicates that the overwhelming majority of potential functional proteins are not even used in the life system. Evolution is constrained in what it can do in a way that designers aren't. The designer would have to be trying to make it look like evolution.
You're still arguing that what looks like a frog could be something other than a frog. When you see an individual apparent frog, do you assume that it came about from the transformation of frogspawn into a tadpole, then a frog, or do you think it equally likely that it could be a Prince magicked into an apparent frog?
Don't you understand that duplication events can be "read" on genomes, and that they happen regularly in labs?
I feel you need more scientific backing for your claims here:
1) You seem to hint that an intelligent designer didn't do a good job, I would like to see how man can improve an organisms fitness in nature through artificial processes, or artificial proteins.
2) You seem to hint that the antifreeze protein of our fish example is less functional because its a recent duplication that looks like other genes. Could you back up your example by showing me in what manner this near-matching gene is only a recent and less efficient evolved gene. IF its functioning at perfect efficiency this would speak of an intelligent designer, if its in the process of recent evolving (some natural "accident" that changed the gene) it would be producing some useless proteins as well as adding a new recent function that is in its infancy of potential improvements in that gene. Explain exactly how the gene supports your position of recent duplication.
3) How much "like a frog" does it look? How many base pairs are in the same sequence? Could you backup your statement with evidence for this close match you are claiming
4) How dissimilar are the functions? If the functions of both genes are similar, this would account for the similarity in design.
I'm just needing evidence for your claims that the fish looks evolved rather than looks designed like that.
I'd be happy to, but you keep implying that supernatural beings can make things without presenting a single known example of this actually happening. It's a bit like having a conversation with someone who claims that kangaroos can speak French, but who cannot present any positive evidence of kangaroos speaking anything, let alone a human language, let alone French. Not quite, though, because at least that person could demonstrate that kangaroos exist!
No. Natural explanations for natural phenomena aren't dumb. They are "plausible and realistic", as Bolder-dash would say. And just what he asks for in the O.P
3 million base pairs appeared in perfect order out of a pool of chemicals, even though those chemicals are not found in non-biological nature? hahahahaha you living in a fantasy world and you dare to point at creationists?? I love it when evolutionists bring up the "supernatural beings" are illogical point of view; I have more ammunition than you guys. Abiogenesis involves even more faith without evidence than believing in a creator ever did. At least from my internal perspective, I have answered prayers to back up my view, do you have adenine forming in nature without biology? Did nature give you an inspired book describing how adenine can create itself? Many logical people prefer an inspired book than a duh uh it all created itself , uh I dunno.
wikipedia:" Both adenine and guanine are derived from the nucleotide inosine monophosphate (IMP), which is synthesised on a pre-existing ribose phosphate through a complex pathway using atoms from the amino acids glycine, glutamine, and aspartic acid, as well as fused with the enzyme tetrahydrofolate."
You have a vicious circle to explain, you NEED biological life to create biological life, just that in itself points to a designer. I'm not criticizing atheists for having faith, I think its quite sweet of them. I just feel its incredibly ironic that those atheists who believe in abiogenesis are normally the most vocal about being anti-faith and pro-science, the hypocrisy is amazing to say the least when in essence they need tons of faith in a process unknown to them.
Its impossible to create adenine without a biological process, and its impossible to have a biological process without adenine, so a designer is all you left with. Please explain your "plausible and realistic" process of adenine creation. An intelligent designer is the intelligent choice.
I need links again, if you insist on saying abiogenesis is more plausible than creation prove it! I prefer to leave abiogenesis and creation out of discussions and look at current genomes and see if they are a reflection of baramins or a long term common ancestor. I feel that's a true discussion on evolution instead of origins, but if you guys keep insisting on discussing origins, bring it on!
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
