Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
131 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 126 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,055 Year: 6,167/6,534 Month: 360/650 Week: 130/278 Day: 28/24 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 61 of 248 (836309)
07-15-2018 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by herebedragons
07-14-2018 4:21 PM


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

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.

And then Dr. A gave an example of antibiotic resistance changing the trait itself. Whatever the trait was originally who knows, he didn't say, but it is no longer that trait, it is now antibiotic resistance. Therefore the mutation destroyed that trait. How is it conducive to evolution for whole genes to be destroyed like that?

Sure I suppose you can "just modify existing traits" but not unless the genetic material for the modification is already present. 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. Unless you can show how mutatons could bring that about.

Besides which wings are usually part of a whole different kind of body structure than arms are. All that has to be modified. Not something mutations could accomplish it seems to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 4:21 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 07-15-2018 5:17 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 64 by JonF, posted 07-15-2018 8:57 AM Faith has replied
 Message 76 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2018 6:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 248 (836329)
07-15-2018 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by JonF
07-15-2018 8:57 AM


Re: No New Functions?
Phenotypic traits depend on more than one gene. Each gene is often involved in multiple phenotypic traits.

It IS true that many genes are usually involved in ONE phenotypic trait, but one gene for many traits: not that I know of. So prove it.

HBD managed to go on and on without ever addressing the point, which amounts to nothing but obfuscation. And you have certainly not addressed it. So I'll repeat my request:

Please just acknowledge that an allele changed by mutation can at best only change whatever that gene governs, so if it's a gene for fur color the mutation is only going to affect fur color.

(Even if you were right that it could affect many traits, such a change would only affect those particular designated traits because the gene determines what those traits are.)

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by JonF, posted 07-15-2018 8:57 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2018 11:12 AM Faith has replied
 Message 68 by JonF, posted 07-15-2018 12:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 12:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 248 (836343)
07-15-2018 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by JonF
07-15-2018 12:34 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Your quote about Hox genes:

Wikipedia writes:

Hox genes, a subset of homeotic genes, are a group of related genes that control the body plan of an embryo along the head-tail axis. After the embryonic segments have formed, the Hox proteins determine the type of appendages (e.g. legs, antennae, and wings in fruit flies ) or the different types of vertebrae (in humans) that will form on a segment. Hox proteins thus confer segmental identity, but do not form the actual segments themselves.

...does not suggest anything about a single gene governing more than one trait, which is what I thought we were discussing. It says this group of genes governs "segmental identity." From the actual quote we could conclude that they do this by one gene per segment identity, which is the usual relation as I've been seeing it.

There is nothing fantasized about the fact that SOME genes (and so far nobody has given evidence of any other kind) govern a particular phenotypic trait or function and you are just indulging in evasion.

And again HBD made a lot of showy remarks without once addressing the relationship of gene to trait.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by JonF, posted 07-15-2018 12:34 PM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 248 (836345)
07-15-2018 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
07-15-2018 11:12 AM


Re: No New Functions?
The only thing that a gene directly governs is the protein it codes for.
Change the gene and you (usually) get a slightly different protein.

YES YOU DO. But that protein produced by a particular gene, a particular segment of DNA, that governs a particular trait, WHICH IS A WELL KNOWN FACT, will only produce a version of whate4ver that trait is. If it's fur color it may produce a different fur color, it WILL NOT produce curly fur or green eyes or wings. ONLY A FUR COLOR. Because that is what the gene DOES.

It’s not obfuscation to point out that the reality of how you get from genes to phenotypic traits like hair colour is not simple

WHO SAID THE PROCESS IS SIMPLE? The point is that you will get whatever the gene governs under normal circumstances how3ever complicated the processes may be. (I'm not sure antibiotic resistance is a normal circumstance but in any case that illustrates a different problem with the claim that mutations further evolution: destruction of a trait. But that is a different subject. With genes known to code for a particular trait, all a mutation could possibly do is produce another version of that particular trait.

can’t be sure that the protein doesn’t have other uses which might be affected. or instance is involved in skin and eye colour but also has other effects.

Utterly irrelevant. You are guessing for one thing but mostly you are just avoiding the simple point that if a gene governs a KNOWN TRAIT, you are only going to get variations of THAT PARTICULAR TRAIT. If it ALSO governs OTHER traits, unknown ones, about which you are wildly speculating, but known or unknown, still all you can get is variations of those other traits as well. It is always going to be specific to the trait or traits governed by that gene.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2018 11:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2018 4:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 12:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 248 (836351)
07-15-2018 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
07-15-2018 4:44 PM


Re: No New Functions?
If you are going to talk about something like melanin EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You are otherwise just doing the usual evasion.

"All the known functions" ? In one gene?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2018 4:44 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 07-16-2018 12:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 248 (836352)
07-15-2018 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
07-15-2018 4:44 PM


Re: No New Functions?

You mean that all the known functions of melanin are wild speculation ? And how can we only get variation in one trait and get variations in other traits too ?

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.

You are just multiplying evasive methods with your comments.

Come to that, what is a trait ? Isn’t the ear fold in Scottish Fold cats a new trait ?

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2018 4:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2018 9:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 12:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 248 (836353)
07-15-2018 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
07-15-2018 4:44 PM


Re: No New Functions?
You seem to think it is a simple matter of one gene, one trait. It isn’t.

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.

Of course it's obvious that this simple point even if it pertains only to SOME genes, is a challenge to the ToE. That's why you're all falling all over yourselves to invent ridiculous objections to it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2018 4:44 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by herebedragons, posted 07-15-2018 6:43 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 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 not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 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 not replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 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 not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 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 not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 248 (836380)
07-16-2018 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
07-16-2018 5:13 AM


Re: No New Functions?
So if a gene affects both eye color and skin color, or fur color, then it should be true to say that a mutation to that gene will affect eye color and skin color or fur color but not the shape of toenails. That is, my point stands: a mutation can only vary whatever phenotypic effect the gene governs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 5:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2018 5:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022