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.
The point you keep missing is the idea of a “phenotypic effect the gene governs” is a bit problematic unless you are talking about protein structure. Genes can find multiple uses - and can find new uses without even mutating.
The responses in this topic are a textbook confirmation of the title of the article at hand, which states that "The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory". In other words, we have two simple facts that are easy to prove. The first is that the Earth is round and the second is that there has been a lack of variations for new biological functions to form. But, just as the Flat Earthers deny the first fact through a complex network of rationalizations, explanations and logical fallacies, people in this topic deny the second fact by using the same modus operandi. The crucial point of the article is this: "previously non-existent biological functions cannot be formed by the evolutionary processes..." because ... "the possible number of biologically nonfunctional structures, and the functional space size of pre-existing structures, are so big, that it is physically impossible to overcome them with the available molecular rearrangements." Now, has anyone here even tried to address this crucial point? No, of course no one has. So, this point is ignored in the same way as the Flat Earthers ignore the spherical shape of the Earth when they try to rationalize their theory. And ignorance of the facts make people do all sorts of irrational things, like putting words in mouths that have never spoken or misquoting in a twisted manner, and using unconscious psychological mechanisms, like rationalization, where ignorance is masked as rational or logical explanation. I didn't open this topic to discuss someone's psychological defense mechanisms or to address all potential logical fallacies that fact deniers can come up with, but to discuss the insufficient variations. All those who are not interested in this issue are free to rationalize their personal beliefs somewhere else.
So, evolution has demonstrably occurred, but you have a theoretical argument proving that it can't, and you're not going to let mere facts stand in the way of your theory.
And you're comparing who to flat-Earthers? People other than yourself?
It's common knowledge, or so I thought, that a gene is a section of DNA that governs or determines the expression of a particular phenotypic trait, so that mutations to that gene can only change how that trait is expressed, it can't alter the trait itself -- meaning it can't produce a different trait.
That is not common knowledge, and it is wrong. Many traits are the result of many different genes interacting with one another.
You have also not shown that a gene can not do something else. It is simply a bare assertion you keep making.
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.
"The ARX gene provides instructions for producing a protein that regulates the activity of other genes. On the basis of this action, the ARX protein is called a transcription factor. The ARX gene is part of a larger family of homeobox genes, which act during early embryonic development to control the formation of many body structures. Specifically, the ARX protein is believed to be involved in the development of the brain, pancreas, testes, and muscles used for movement (skeletal muscles)." https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/ARX
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.
What you can't seem to get your head around is that mutations in these genes can change what they govern and change how they function. You seem to have invented these restrictions out of thin air.
n other words, we have two simple facts that are easy to prove. The first is that the Earth is round and the second is that there has been a lack of variations for new biological functions to form.
I already disproved your claims in previous posts. Perhaps you should check them out. Given your refusal to address posts disproving your claims, it would seem that you have more in common with the flat earthers than we do.
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.
You need some evidence to back up these claims.
(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.
How is that insufficient for human evolution from a common ancestor shared with chimps?
I need evidence to prove that a gene governs a particular phenotype? I find this mindboggling. So you are saying maybe it governs more than one phenotypic effect? Maybe a whole lot of them? But apparently it governs those and not others. So a mutation would VARY those phenotypic effects according to the ways that trait varies, that is, within parameters determined by the gene itself. Seems logical to me.
The complications you and others keep adding to this point seem designed merely to obfuscate and confuse. If a gene did the completely unpredictable things you seem to be saying it does there would be no point in there being a gene at all.
...With genes known to code for a particular trait, all a mutation could possibly do is produce another version of that particular trait.
How is that insufficient for human evolution from a common ancestor shared with chimps?
At least now you are addressing my point, thank you. It's insufficient because if the gene determines the particular trait -- I keep using fur color because it seems simple enough although I understand that there are likely many genes that affect fur color, still we ought to be able to focus on one of them for the sake of this point -- then all you will ever get is a variation in fur color, but of course to get the changes required by the ToE you need change outside the parameters set by the genes or whatever other genetic element sets such parameters and guides the phenotypic outcome. Cuz they dictate that all you can get is the particular creature with all its beautiful variations and nothing else.
That's OK though. Obviously we are going to go limping along with the ToE even if it is totally untenable because the complications obscure how untenable it is, and the only people who could possibly get anywhere in this debate would be certified geneticists and geologists or scientists in some related field, and even then they won't get anywhere proving even the simplest points as long as they contradict the establishment position. Looks to me like this utterly false theory is just going to go on dictating false ideas until the Lord returns.
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?
There are definitely genes. What you can't seem to understand is that many traits are the result of many genes, much like a cookie is the result of many ingredients. Even fur color is the result of many genes. In fact, there are two separate populations of black pocket mice that are black because of mutations in different genes.
I already said I know that traits are the result of many genes. That doesn't alter the point that a gene is what determines the phenotypic effect. So it's many genes, nevertheless each one plays its own particular role. And that being the case a mutation to a given gene that actually brings about a change can only vary whatever that particular gene does to the phenotype.