Changing the sequence theoretically substitutes one allele for the other at a particular gene locus, so all it changes is what that allele does to that gene, it varies that trait.
Changing the sequence of DNA can create an entirely new allele (trait) that did not previously exist. That is this new sequence of DNA will, in turn, construct new sequences of amino acids which, in turn, combine to form new protiens which, in turn, can alter the morphological characteristics of that type of organism.
Yes, this is the theory, that it "can create an entirely new allele (trait)," but in actual fact what usually happens is that it makes no difference at all in the trait, OR it changes in the direction of a genetic disease, OR it simply kills the gene altogether. It's pure theory or faith that says it creates a new viable allele or trait as you are declaring. According to the theory it SHOULD do that, it MUST do that, but in reality it doesn't do that. Sure it changes the sequence of the DNA, but not in the direction the theory says it should, not in a constructive or beneficial direction.
All that evolution needs to move forward is enough variation in a population to genetically isolate it from other populations of the same species enough to not be able to interbreed with the previous population and thus make a new species.
That's another statement of the theory but the reality is something different. To get that variation in phenotypes through reproductive isolation involves a trend to reduction of genetic variability as I keep arguing. You have to get the change in gene frequencies brought about by the formation of a new daughter population to bring out the new phenotypes, and it takes long term reproductive isolation to bring about inability to interbreed with the former population, and often that doesn't happen, you continue to have gene flow, hybrid zones and so on. But if you DO get complete isolation and the inability to interbreed its only a definitional trick to call that a new "species" which implies the operation of the ToE toward more evolution of that new species, but in fact you've got a reduced genetic variability in that new population now, that's what's always left out of the ToE formula. It's always assumed you can just go on getting more variability, through mutations or whatever, but in fact you don't. Of course the trend to reduction of genetic variability is really only noticeable if the daughter population is formed from appreciably smaller numbers, but one thing you never get is an increase, which is what the ToE implies and assumes and needs. You can get a shuffling and remixing but never an increase. The idea that mutation is going to bring that about is pure wishful fantasy.
If it's a gene for eye color, then the mutation may replace an allele for blue eyes with an allele for gray eyes.
Or create an allele for a new trait not previously existing in that type of organism.
Not if the gene is the recipe for eye color. A viable allele for that particular gene is only going to affect eye color. You are not going to get a new trait. For that you need a whole different gene.
But in reality all that usually happens is that nothing changes anyway, OR it simply destroys the allele altogether.
Most mutations are neutral not destructive.
Yes, as to their effect on the organism, but if the process of mutation is in reality a mistake, a disease process, then even if there is no recognizable effect from a particular change, the process is nevertheless destructive to the DNA itself and further mutations would only increase that destructive effect.
That is because many multicellular organisms are diploid and have duplicate chromosomes which can correct or mitigate the effects caused by mutations that may occur on the other chromosome. However, sometimes the effects of mutations (point, insert, deletion, frameshift, etc) overcome this mitigating factor to the point that new traits can come into existence.
This is pure theory, an article of faith, in reality it does not happen.
Since natural selection and other factors weed out the organisms with mutations that are potentially harmful to a species, mutations which cause new traits to be introduced are inherently 'favored' by nature to perpetuate.
Fortunately the effects can be mitigated to some extent but if mutations are basically a disease process, which I believe but the ToE denies and obscures, this is really more theory taken on faith, not reality. A recital of the ToE Creed.
In any case this doesn't change anything in the structure of the genome. If it's a cat genome it remains a cat genome.
It changes the sequence of the genome which by definition changes the genome just like changing the amount of ingredients or the procedural steps of a recipe for a cake can change the outcome of that cake (or even create something different from a cake).
Yes, but the gene determines WHAT that sequence is going to do. You are not changing the gene sequence by substituting another allele, you are only varying the expression of what that gene is designed to do. If it makes cat whiskers all the alleles for that gene are going to make cat whiskers of some kind or another, long or short, black or green, curly or straight, thick or thin. They are not going to make something OTHER than cat whiskers.
Yeah, right, usually either producing no change at all or producing something destructive.
See my explanation above.
Your explanation is really nothing more than a recital of the ToE creed. You believe things that in reality don't happen.
Mutations have probably contributed more to junk DNA than anything else.
Junk DNA is a misnomer. Much of this 'junk' DNA actually serves a purpose and is a carry over of mutations from previous generations. The very existence of junk DNA, much carried over from the evolving of one species to another, is evidence for the TOE.
I can believe it's a "carryover of mutations from previous generations" sure, but that means DNA that the mutations have destroyed over time. It may not be totally dead yet but it's on its way there. It has nothing to do with "species" "evolving," except in the direction of disease and death.
In any case if they did produce something viable it would only be a change in a particular trait, not a change in the formula for the Species itself
Changes in traits combine to change the "formula" for that species.
See what I've said above. It can only do what the gene sequence itself is designed to do, make a particular trait, change only how that trait is expressed. Green whiskers instead of yellow etc. Maybe it will be so destructive it will eliminate the whiskers altogether or make scraggly droopy whiskers or something like that. But it isn't going to affect anything other than the whiskers.
The point I've been trying to make is that all that changes is within the existing DNA strand, you aren't getting brand new genes for instance, you are only getting one form of a gene in the place of another
A change in the sequence of nucleotides in DNA can produce new traits.
Prove it. It only produces variation in the trait determined by that sequence known as a gene. Anything else would be more destructive anyway.
Even in single cell organisms such as E-coli bacteria there may be over 4 million base pairs (nucleotides), yet this bacteria only has about 3000 genes. Are you saying that any mutations of this DNA will ONLY result in one of the 3000 pre-defined genes being changed of another, and never creating a new gene with a different sequence of base pairs?
In a sense, yes, but I don't know what makes a gene a gene. The sequence can change, that's what the different alleles are, changes in that sequence, but still change only the expression of that gene, it isn't going to change what that gene does, for instance make cat whiskers. If it did I'd expect it to do something REALLY destructive.;
If so what is keeping new sequences of gene base pairs other than the already exhibited genes from being created?
Something in the design of the DNA, whatever that is. If it were as malleable as you seem to think it is there would never be a recognizable species at all.
The processes that bring out new phenotypes reduce genetic diversity, whether that genetic diversity was built in, which I as a creationist believe it was, or produced by mutations.
No evidence to back up this claim.
There's a lot of circumstantial evidence from bottlenecks like the cheetah and the elephant seal, and from conservation problems where maintaining a genetically variable species in the wild is often a major concern. The usual answer that these are unusual situations and that mutations prevent that from happening in general just obscures the reality that phenotypic variation is usually accompanied by a trend to reduction in variability. This COULD be proved easily enough by creating a sequence of daughter populations in the laboratory and keeping track of what happens to the DNA over a series of these.
Either way the allele is either selected or rejected.
Correct, but this allele (gene sequence) can be a newly introduced one as opposed to one that existed previously in a population so your point it moot.
Theoretically and only theoretically. All you are stating here is theory. Newly introduced alleles by mutation are not likely to be beneficial, but either neutral (which I think is in fact destructive to the DNA anyway) or deleterious.
I'll have to come back to your fruit flies and beetles.
[ABE: In this post I'm mostly countering your theory with my own theory, but all you have posted IS theory and you don't seem to know that. ]
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
