EvC Forum: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Yes, this is the theory, that it "can create an entirely new allele (trait),".

Actually any mutation or change in the DNA is a "new" allele since an allele is defined as an alternate form of a gene (a sequence of DNA on a chromosome that code for the production of one or more proteins). In other words a mutation causes a change in the DNA sequence through insertion, deletion, frameshift or by point mutation, which in turn changes that gene/allele. So bottom line is, all mutations create new alleles. However, not all changes in alleles cause phenotypic trait (exhibited) changes to that organism or its offspring (depending on whether the mutation was germinal or somatic).

Now, whether these changes cause by mutations are beneficial, harmful or neutral to the organism and its offspring is another matter.

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

True, in the fact that most mutations are neutral, but what prevents traits from being created which benefit the species. Again you are missing the whole point of natural selection weeding out the organisms with harmful mutations and favoring those with mutations that benefit the species. At the molecular level there is no difference from a beneficial mutation and a deleterious one. A mutation is a mutation in DNA world. It is only at the macroscopic scale of the organism and ultimately a population of genetically similar organisms aka species that it makes a difference.

That's another statement of the theory but the reality is something different.

Please provide evidence for your assertion.

To get that variation in phenotypes through reproductive isolation involves a trend to reduction of genetic variability as I keep arguing.

And which you provide no evidence for.

Again how does variation in phenotypes (aka traits) come about by a reduction in genetic variability (aka traits). Makes no sense and has no evidence to back it up.

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

Ok, new daughter populations may bring out new phenotypes through the reinforcement of already existing alleles or the creation of new alleles through mutations, which may be either beneficial, neutral or harmful to that population. So yes, this may change the gene frequency of certain alleles (new or existing) in that population.

But if you DO get complete isolation and the inability to interbreed its only a definitional trick to call that a new "species"

Why is this a definitional "trick"? Scientists have been defining species as organisms that have the inability (or near inability, some can breed but produce infertile offspring) to interbreed, for nearly 200 years. So what is your definition of a species? Obviously you are smarter than the millions of biological scientists in the world.

but in fact you've got a reduced genetic variability in that new population now

I think you mean genetic diversity not genetic variation correct? That is you are trying to say that that amount of traits reduces in a new population not that the genetic difference between these traits reduces, correct? Either way, what specifically is causing this. I need to understand what you are trying to say, to see if it is valid or not.

la. It's always assumed you can just go on getting more variability, through mutations or whatever, but in fact you don't.

There are several ways of getting more genetic variation (wider variation between genetic traits of a population): mutations, gene flow and sex (genetic reshuffling of traits). That is a population with a higher mutational rate and/or gene flow and/or sexual activity (especially between those with differing alleles) will create a wider range of genetic variation. Those with the opposite will create a more narrow range of genetic variation. For example, human populations which interbreed more with each other instead of those outside their group will create less genetic variation not more since dominant genes will be reinforced and the recessive genes may eventually be removed from the gene pool hence why you see very few red heads in oriental cultures.

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 fundamentally misunderstand this process and oversimplify it. Enough genetic variation is needed to make a daughter population of an organism genetically different than its parent to a degree that it can no longer effectively breed with that original population. This can be cause by physical dislocation of the two populations which cause each population to drift apart genetically and/or by a reduction of gene flow caused by numerous reasons between these two populations to the degree that they differ enough genetically to not produce fertile offspring.

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.

You missed my point, mutations can create a new allele from an existing one merely by changing DNA sequence of the existing allele. A change in the structure of the gene i.e. mutations which change the nucleotides will change the gene.

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.

Destructive to DNA does not make sense in reference to mutations. Mutations typically don't destroy DNA, destroy usually means eliminating it. We have so many mutations (aka changes) in our DNA that we don't know where previous mutations begin or end. Our DNA is built up over eons of changes aka mutations. Again, it does not make sense to call mutations at the molecular level harmful, beneficial or even neutral. Mutations are mutations. It is only at the organism level and above that these terms make sense.

If you mean harmful to the survival of that particular species than yes the cumulative effect of mutations to an organism's gamete DNA can possibly be destructive to that organism's offspring. But again, natural selection and other factors will weed these individual organisms out of the gene pool or that species may possibly die out because of the cumulative results of the deleterious changes to the DNA.

This is pure theory, an article of faith, in reality it does not happen.

Hand waving away a logical and sound explanation does not help your case. If you don't like it, provide solid reasons why besides just saying it can't or doesn't happen.

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.

Mutations are not a disease process per se since mutations can be benefit as well as harm the survivability of that species. Mutations are a natural process. Your body, cells, and DNA are in a constant barrage of background (radiation from the Earth, other organisms, and man-made sources) and cosmic radiation which produce a number of mutations in the DNA of your body. However, our DNA is very good at correcting and counteracting these mutations. Basically we have a self-correcting DNA repair system in place. The number I found was that approximately 175 mutations (those that are not corrected) occur in one humans genome during his or her lifetime. And a very small amount of any of these for one individual occur in the gametes and passed down to future generations. However, more primitive organisms have a lower ability to correct these mutations.

Yes, but the gene determines WHAT that sequence is going to do.

No, the gene IS the sequence. A gene is a sequence of DNA which allows the manufacture of amino acids which link up to form proteins.

You are not changing the gene sequence by substituting another allele,

If you change the sequence of nucleotides you ARE creating new alleles than what existed previously.

you are only varying the expression of what that gene is designed to do.

There are typically 88 keys on a modern piano. By changing the sequence of keys played you change the music that is heard. In a similar way changing the sequence of base pairs in a gene may produce a new allele to be introduced. There are over 3 billion base pairs in the human genome and a little over 20,000 protein-coding genes. In fact only a tiny percent, 1.5%, of the entire human genome are protein-coding genes. Therefore if the sequence in even one of these 20,000 genes which an extremely small portion of the genome changes, this can create an entirely new gene/allele and may or may not produce a new phenotypic trait depending on its effect on that organism.

Maybe this illustration will help. It shows a point mutation of a specific nucleotide. This creates a new sequence which in turn depending on its location can create a new variation of a gene aka an allele.

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.

If a mutation changes the nucleotides in that specific gene than it is possible to vary that cat whisker enough to make it change morphologically.

It can only do what the gene sequence itself is designed to do, make a particular trait,

The modification or "making" of traits over time is what evolution is all about. You are proving the case for the TOE.

Green whiskers instead of yellow etc.

Or lengthening or shortening that whisker until it becomes something other than a whisker.

Maybe it will be so destructive it will eliminate the whiskers altogether

True. I wouldn't call this "destructive" unless it is harmful to the survival of that organism and its offspring.

or make scraggly droopy whiskers or something like that.

You prove my case above.

But it isn't going to affect anything other than the whiskers.

No one mutation typically doesn't affect more than one gene. However, changes in traits over time can cause more morphological changes for the species.

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,

Of course it changes what the gene does. A gene is nothing more than the a protein-coding portion of DNA. So by changing the sequence of nucleotides in a gene you are changing the amino acids that the gene codes for which in turn changes the protein(s) produced. By changing the proteins produced you effectively change the function of the gene. Bottom line is that mutations change the coding of the gene which in turn change what the gene "does".

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.

I gave you the reason above concerning the human genome in that the higher-level organisms such as humans has an error-correcting mechanism which helps reduce the amount of changes that occur in the genome from one generation to the next. But it is not fool proof. Changes do occur. With lower-level organisms this error-correcting process is much less full proof if it exists at all. Thus the level of mutational changes are higher in these organisms.

There, I argued your own case. You are welcome. Now go do some reading on genetics and microbiology.

phenotypic variation is usually accompanied by a trend to reduction in variability.

Repeating it over and over does not make it true.

Theoretically and only theoretically. All you are stating here is theory.

Theory is the bread and butter to a scientist. Heliocentrism (the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun) is a "theory" (quotes are for emphasis). Newtons laws (a fancy word for a mathematical explanation of something) of motion are derived from his "theories" on gravitation and other forces, Quantum mechanics is a "theory". General relativity is a "theory". Plate tectonics is a "theory". All of these "theories" have been proven over and over from observation and repeated experimentation by peers to be correct. So to call this a theory is a complement to a scientist, who actually knows what the word "theory" means.

[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. ]

It is not MY theory. It is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection which has been peer-review for over 100 years by millions of scientists. And yours is not a theory it is a discombobulated attempt at a hypothesis for why "macroevolution" can not occur brought about by a poor understanding of the subject area.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

3 online now:	LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0