Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
88 online now:
AZPaul3, vimesey (2 members, 86 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,025 Year: 5,137/6,534 Month: 557/794 Week: 48/135 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


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 715 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 taken no action

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


Message 92 of 248 (836381)
07-16-2018 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
07-16-2018 5:22 AM


Re: No New Functions?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 5:22 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 322 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 248 (836397)
07-16-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by forexhr
07-15-2018 6:08 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by forexhr, posted 07-15-2018 6:08 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 1:48 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 94 of 248 (836398)
07-16-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
07-15-2018 5:11 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

If you are going to talk about something like melanin EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You are otherwise just doing the usual evasion.


That's pretty bizarre. Telling you something you don't understand is "evasion" - but you can claim something you don't understand is wrong?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 5:11 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 95 of 248 (836401)
07-16-2018 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
07-14-2018 2:24 AM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 2:24 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 96 of 248 (836402)
07-16-2018 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
07-15-2018 9:09 AM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 9:09 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 97 of 248 (836403)
07-16-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by forexhr
07-15-2018 6:08 AM


forexhr writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by forexhr, posted 07-15-2018 6:08 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 1:53 AM Taq has replied
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2018 8:22 AM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 98 of 248 (836406)
07-16-2018 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
07-15-2018 4:33 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 4:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 1:38 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 99 of 248 (836407)
07-16-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taq
07-16-2018 12:58 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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.

Ah well.

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 12:58 PM Taq has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 07-16-2018 2:18 PM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 100 of 248 (836410)
07-16-2018 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
07-16-2018 1:38 PM


Re: No New Functions?

I need evidence to prove that a gene governs a particular phenotype?

Yes.

I find this mindboggling.

The fact that you find the idea of producing evidence for a scientific claim mind-boggling says a lot about you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 1:38 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 101 of 248 (836411)
07-16-2018 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
07-16-2018 4:50 AM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

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.


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 102 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 3:00 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 248 (836417)
07-16-2018 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Taq
07-16-2018 2:20 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 2:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 3:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 103 of 248 (836420)
07-16-2018 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
07-16-2018 3:00 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

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.

Where is the evidence for this claim?

Why can't there be a gene duplication event where one copy keeps on doing what it did before, but the other duplicate mutates and starts doing something new and produces a new phenotype?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 3:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 3:14 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 104 of 248 (836422)
07-16-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Taq
07-16-2018 3:09 PM


Re: No New Functions?
[qs] Why can't there be a gene duplication event where one copy keeps on doing what it did before, but the other duplicate mutates and starts doing something new and produces a new phenotype? [/qa]

I dunno. Seems to me a duplicate would do whatever the gene it duplicates does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 3:09 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 4:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 107 by JonF, posted 07-16-2018 5:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 105 of 248 (836426)
07-16-2018 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
07-16-2018 3:14 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

I dunno. Seems to me a duplicate would do whatever the gene it duplicates does.

Surely you can understand why your uninformed opinions are not facts nor science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 3:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 5:06 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022