Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
110 online now:
dwise1, nwr, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (4 members, 106 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,004 Year: 5,116/6,534 Month: 536/794 Week: 27/135 Day: 4/23 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 76 of 248 (836357)
07-15-2018 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
07-15-2018 1:22 AM


Re: No New Functions?
I see no relevance to your preoccupation with the molecular level HBD.

Typical.

Bottom line is you don't understand what is going on at a molecular level and you have clear misconceptions about how genetics works so there is just no way you can accurately pontificate about what mutations to a gene can or cannot do.

If you think you can... describe an example of antibiotic or fungicide resistance and explain how a mutation that confers that resistance destroys the previous function.

How about just acknowledging that a mutation's changing an allele, at best can only change whatever that gene governs, so if it's a gene for fur color the mutation is only going to affect fur color? Pretty simple it seems to me.

So you want me to agree with something that is obviously wrong? Or at best so overly simplistic as to be misleading?

Sure I suppose you can "just modify existing traits" but not unless the genetic material for the modification is already present.

Of course you can't modify something that isn't there. But a modified trait is still a new trait.

If an organism already has the genetic stuff for making both arms and wings it could make either, but if it only has the stuff for making arms it isn't going to make a wing.

Here is an image that shows the skeletal structure of the appendages from 4 different mammals:

Describe the "genetic stuff" needed for each structure. How is the "genetic stuff" different in each example? Each has a humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metacarpals and phalanges. Don't you think there is a humerus gene and a radius gene and a carpals gene? Isn't there a gene that controls each bone?

Perhaps you could describe the genetic differences between those four phenotypes.

Not something mutations could accomplish it seems to me.

But since you don't know how the genotype is converted into the phenotype and you don't know how mutations would affect that process, you are in no position to speculate as to whether it could be done or not. If genetics worked the way you seem to think it does, you would probably be right, that mutations could not accomplish it. But since genetics works much different that you imagine, you cannot make an honest judgement on the subject.

Come to think of it... I think much of this misunderstanding comes from the common analogy relating the information in the genetic code to the words in a book. It gives the impression that the instructions for building an organism is written out in genetic code just like instructions for making a cake are spelled out in a recipe book. But this is not the way it works at all. In reality, "words in a book" is a terrible analogy. I'm not sure there IS a good analogy that describes how genetics really works. But if you are going at this with the idea that the genome is a recipe for building an organism, that would explain a lot of your misconceptions.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 1:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 6:31 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 248 (836358)
07-15-2018 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by herebedragons
07-15-2018 6:28 PM


Re: No New Functions?
You are quite right, I do NOT know what is "going on at the molecular level" but I do know that it is screamingly irrelevant to the subject at hand, and that all you are doing is multiplying irrelevancies to avoid it.

But having read your first sentence and not feeling inclined to have a heart attack over another assault on my intelligence I'm taking a break now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2018 6:28 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2018 9:47 PM Faith has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 78 of 248 (836360)
07-15-2018 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
07-15-2018 5:20 PM


Re: No New Functions?
In many cases, maybe most -- maybe even all if you'd all get your brains unscrewed from whatever nonsense you prefer to be true rather than what I'm saying -- in many cases it IS a simple matter of one gene, one trait.

In any case I'm asking you to acknowledge THOSE cases instead of multiplying irrelevant objections for the purpose of obscuring the point.

Name all the known cases of one gene = one trait.

Here is some reading for you.

From Genes to Traits:

quote:
One often hears news reports about discoveries of a "gene for X", e.g., gene for alcoholism, gene for homosexuality, gene for breast cancer, etc. This is an incorrect way of thinking about genes, as it implies a one-to-one mapping between genes and traits.

This misunderstanding stems from historical precedents. The very first genes were discovered decades ago with quite primitive technology. Thus, the only genes that could be discovered were those with large, dramatic effects on the traits.


HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 5:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 10:05 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 79 of 248 (836366)
07-15-2018 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
07-15-2018 5:17 PM


Re: No New Functions?
This suggests you are talking about melanin as a protein produced by different genes?

Melanin is not a protein, it is a pigment. It is not produced by a gene. The enzymes that catalyze the chemical reactions in the biosynthetic pathway are produced by genes. Below is the biosynthesis pathway:

How could this process be controlled by a single gene?

If so it produces different traits according to which gene is producing it.

Nope.

I'm sure many genes produce the same protein but the gene itself determines what the protein does in the phenotype.

A gene produces a protein. How does the gene determine "what the protein does in the phenotype?" What does that even mean?

You are just multiplying evasive methods with your comments.

Why do you think telling the truth about things and trying to straighten out misunderstandings is evasive?

It is a new form of ear produced by a mutationj to the gene that governs the structure or form of cat ears. The trait is cat ear form or structure, different alleles control different variations on the cat ear.

You think there is a cat ear gene? LOL. Oh, wow...

There is no cat ear gene. Features like that would be a quantitative trait; controlled by multiple genes. Think about it... how many different proteins are used in the formation of a cat ear?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 5:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 10:08 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 80 of 248 (836367)
07-15-2018 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
07-15-2018 6:31 PM


Re: No New Functions?
But having read your first sentence and not feeling inclined to have a heart attack over another assault on my intelligence I'm taking a break now.

I am not attacking your intelligence. I think you are very intelligent. The problem is you're arrogant... you have a cursory knowledge of a subject and embrace a plethora of misunderstandings yet when people who are knowledgeable about the subject disagree with you, you berate them, call them brainwashed, ignore their comments, etc.

It's your arrogance and pride that people attack.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 6:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 10:20 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 248 (836368)
07-15-2018 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by herebedragons
07-15-2018 6:43 PM


Re: No New Functions?
-
One often hears news reports about discoveries of a "gene for X", e.g., gene for alcoholism, gene for homosexuality, gene for breast cancer, etc. This is an incorrect way of thinking about genes, as it implies a one-to-one mapping between genes and traits.This misunderstanding stems from historical precedents. The very first genes were discovered decades ago with quite primitive technology. Thus, the only genes that could be discovered were those with large, dramatic effects on the traits.

THAT IS JUST PLAIN STUPID. If you can't get it straight what I'm saying then I'm just going to ignore you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2018 6:43 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 248 (836369)
07-15-2018 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by herebedragons
07-15-2018 9:34 PM


Re: No New Functions?
I don't care what melanin does. IF I guessed wrong I guessed wrong. It is irrelevant to the point.

I also don't care what the trait is that turns into a curled cat ear, that's also irrelevant.

The point is still that a mutation to that gene cannot do anything outside of what the gene does. You are going on and on about all kinds of totally irrelevfant stuff instead of addressing this one point.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2018 9:34 PM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 1:07 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 83 of 248 (836370)
07-15-2018 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by herebedragons
07-15-2018 9:47 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Thinking one is right is not being arrogant and I AM right but being treated like an imbecile. Sorry, it is not arrogance to be right, and that is what you are objecting to, that I'm right and know I'm right. the pride is in those who can't stand that I know I'm right. Maybe even can't stand it because I'm female.

Stop building mountains of irrelevance and just address this one point I know I'm right about:

AS A GENERAL RULE A mutation to a gene cannot do anything outside of what the gene governs in the phenotype.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2018 9:47 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 84 of 248 (836372)
07-16-2018 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
07-15-2018 5:17 PM


Re: No New Functions?
quote:

This suggests you are talking about melanin as a protein produced by different genes? If so it produces different traits according to which gene is producing it. I'm sure many genes produce the same protein but the gene itself determines what the protein does in the phenotype.

The point is the complexity of the system. Melanin (or melanins - there are variants) is produced in the body over a great range of species and used in a number of ways. And it isn’t even directly produced from genes.

But you are being a bit silly about the idea that many genes produce the same protein. While gene duplication does occur it’s more usual to end up with specialised variations than for two genes to produce the exact same protein. But the idea that there are separate genes producing the exact same protein exclusively for particular parts of the body is not exactly likely.

quote:

It is a new form of ear produced by a mutationj to the gene that governs the structure or form of cat ears. The trait is cat ear form or structure, different alleles control different variations on the cat ear.

Really ? Do you know that or are you just guessing ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 5:17 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 85 of 248 (836374)
07-16-2018 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
07-15-2018 10:08 PM


Re: No New Functions?
quote:

The point is still that a mutation to that gene cannot do anything outside of what the gene does.

What a gene does is provide a template for producing a protein (sometimes more than one).

That’s it.

In the context of the whole system it may have particular effects but there is a lot more to that then the gene sequence.

Until you understand that you really are going to struggle with this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 10:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 4:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 248 (836375)
07-16-2018 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by PaulK
07-16-2018 1:07 AM


Re: No New Functions?
What a gene does is provide a template for producing a protein (sometimes more than one).
That’s it.

the evasion is absolutely remarkable.

What a gene does is (provide a template for) produce a protein or sometimes more than one...

that determines a phenotypic trait.

An allele/gene for fur color will produce a protein that brings about a certain fur color.

A mutation to that allele may not change anything or may produce a different fur color. But it can only produce a fur color, nothing else.

I know you don't want to acknowledge this because it is evidence against the ToE.

The only person here who addressed the point was Dr. Adequate, the first one to respond way back there somewhere. He obviously got it and he gave maybe the only answer to it, the case of antibiotic resistance which actually changes the phenotype/trait itself instead of merely varying it. Which brings up another problem with mutations for the ToE but anyway.../

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 1:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 4:39 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 87 of 248 (836376)
07-16-2018 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
07-16-2018 4:24 AM


Re: No New Functions?
quote:

the evasion is absolutely remarkable.

It’s not evasion, it’s a fundamental fact. And you will never understand how genes actually work until you get it.

quote:

An allele/gene for fur color will produce a protein that brings about a certain fur color.

Speaking of it as an allele “for fur colour” is not strictly true. Genes are not a blueprint for building a body.

All you can say is that the allele happens to produce a particular fur colour in a particular context but how it does it and whether that is all it does and what it might do in a different context are simply unknowable without a deeper understanding.

quote:

I know you don't want to acknowledge this because it is evidence against the ToE.

There you go inventing motives. Something you have complained about others doing to you - even when they weren’t doing it.

Now maybe you should consider the possibility that we are disagreeing with your erroneous ideas because they are erroneous.

I asked you about the genetics of the Scottish Fold cat and I note that you didn’t answer, so I will ask again. Do you really think that there is a gene for ear shape involved ? And if you do, why ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 4:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 4:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 248 (836377)
07-16-2018 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
07-16-2018 4:39 AM


Re: No New Functions?
WQhat you are all claiming is really that there is no such thing as a gene at all. There is no such thing as an allele that makes brown eyes in combination with another allele, or blue eyes in combination with a different allele at a particular location on the DNA strand, there is only a particular sequence of chemicals that produces a particular protein that produces a particular phenotypic effect and it doesn't matter where it occurs on the DNA strand. That is what you are saying. So there is no such thing as a gene. Is that really what you mean?

So according to that idea it would be possible for a mutation to so alter the sequence that a protein that makes fur color could show up on a gene that normally makes eye color? I know I've got this very confused but it's the best I can do with the weird stuff you are all writing.

ABE: So it's all the sequence/protein that does everything. It is what determines the phenotype, not a particular segment on the DNA strand normally called a gene. I('m sure this is wrong but it is what you all see4m to be saying.

I don't know if there is a gene for ear shape, but there is a gene for something a mutation to which causes a curled cat ear.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 4:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 5:13 AM Faith has replied
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 2:20 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 89 of 248 (836378)
07-16-2018 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
07-16-2018 4:50 AM


Re: No New Functions?
quote:

WQhat you are all claiming is really that there is no such thing as a gene at all

Mendelian genes are a theoretical construct (Mendel just did breeding experiments - he had no idea of what a gene was or how it produced the effects he saw).

Now we do know what genes are, what they do and a part of how they do it (it IS complicated and regulatory sequences are very, very important even though they aren’t genes)

quote:

...it doesn't matter where it occurs on the DNA strand.

Nobody is saying that that doesn’t matter.

quote:

So there is no such thing as a gene. Is that really what you mean?

There are genes but they aren’t what Mendel thought they were is more accurate.

quote:

So according to that idea it would be possible for a mutation to so alter the sequence that a protein that makes fur color could show up on a gene that normally makes eye color?

That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but I’ll make some points that seem relevant.

Eye colour is affected by a number of genes - and I think it quite likely that some would also affect fur colour (some genes that affect human eye colour also affect skin colour). The genes don’t directly make the colour anyway. They may, however, influence the making of the cells that do make the colour.

quote:

I don't know if there is a gene for ear shape, but there is a gene for something a mutation to which causes a curled cat ear.

There isn’t a relevant gene for ear shape anyway. The relevant gene affects cartilage - and it’s not localised to the ear at all.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 4:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 5:18 AM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 5:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 248 (836379)
07-16-2018 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
07-16-2018 5:13 AM


Re: No New Functions?
Yes I knew it had to do with cartilage. Which implies it isn't limited to the ear. It makes soft cartilage. Can't be good for the animal.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 5:13 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022