|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't claim they are science, I just claim in particular cases like this one that I'm right, and so far I haven't seen any really substantial evidence that I'm not. Stands to reson doesn't it that a duplicate would do whast the original did? Do you have evidence to the contraryz?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Seems to me a duplicate would do whatever the gene it duplicates does. Until it mutates, yes. After... maybe, maybe not. Maybe it doesn't do anything. Maybe it does something different. But mutation can only change the variation on the phenotype as I keep saying, not the phenotype itself. If it governs fur color it will change the fur color. That's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Shouldn't need evidence, it's well known.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I keep repeating myself because nobody acknowledges this very simple obvious point.
Alleles make a protein that makes a certain fur color in a gene for fur color. A mutation changes the sequence of an allele so if it does anything at all it can only change the fur color in a gene for fur color.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Wikipedia on "Gene" writes: Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population. These alleles encode slightly different versions of a protein, which cause different phenotypical traits. Different variationsDifferent versions of a protein which cause different phenotypic traits Do I have to say that if it's a gene for fur color the different phenotypic trait won't be something other than fur color, say maybe fur texture or bushiness of the tail, it will only be a different color of fur?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are denying the obvious.
The point is simple. The gene, or whatever the genetic determinant is --, only does what it does, --Doesn't matter if the gene codes for half a dozen different phenotypic traits it's still going to code for those and no others ------.so changes to it will only change how that thing it does does it, it won't cause it to do anything else. This is just one of many limitations to the change required by the ToE if the ToE actually works. It doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
.previously non-existent functions can come into existence only through molecular rearrangements, and with the fact that these rearrangements are greatly insufficient since they must overcome both the functional space size of pre-existing structures and all possible junk structures that do not provide biological functions I'm afraid I don't understand what any of this means and don't even know where to start to ask what it means. Can you put it into other words perhaps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In the example of the pocket mouse, the change in fur color for pocket mice is due to mutations in the MC1R gene: "The melanocortin 1 receptor controls which type of melanin is produced by melanocytes. When the receptor is activated, it triggers a series of chemical reactions inside melanocytes that stimulate these cells to make eumelanin. If the receptor is not activated or is blocked, melanocytes make pheomelanin instead of eumelanin."MC1R gene: MedlinePlus Genetics The mutations in that gene caused the MC1R to be activated throughout hair growth causing the deposition of eumelanin throughout hair growth. This results in black fur instead of brown fur. You have just elaborately described HOW fur color is changed by a mutation or mutations to a gene that governs fur color. Sounds like what I've been saying. It's a gene that governs fur color and mutations changed only fur color.
There is nothing stopping other mutations in the MC1R gene to stimulate other pathways in the cell. At some point in the future, mc1r could be expressed in different cell types and control the production of other proteins. There is no physical law that limits mc1r to only controlling the production of melanin in skin cells. First, this is purely a hypothetical, something mutations in this gene MIGHT bring about in the future, though meanwhile all you actually KNOW the mutations have done is change the fur color. Second, if in the future mutations bring about some other effect, it would still be an effect governed by the gene, limited by the gene, within the parameters of what the gene does, also confirming my argument that this is the only kind of change you can get from mutations to a gene. In other words, the potential for this to happen is already present in the way the gene works, nothing new. So you've confirmed my argument. Thank you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your claim that MC1R can only affect melanin production for all of time How on earth did I say that? What on earth does it even mean? "All of time?" All I said was that you had described how a certain gene determines fur color. That's what you did, you described how it makes a diffrerent fur color, and said nothing about how it makes anything else, except that it MIGHT in the FUTURE make something else. Well I'm not a gene prophet, are you? Why go beyond the actual facts? The actual facts being this gene changes fur color and so far nothing else tht you know of.
is also purely hypothetical. You don't KNOW that this is the case. Of course not, I don't know the future and neither do you. I'm just going by what you actually said: this gene produces black fur color. Period. What limits am I talking about? The limits of what a gene actually DOES. Why on earth do people say "gene for eye color, gene for this, gene for that if it isn't the gene that determines the phenotypic effect? It does what it does and in the case you gave apparently ONLY changed the fur color. That's all I know about that gene. If a gene is known to govern half a dozen different phenotypic effects then I assume those are the limits of that gene. Mutations to the gene can only create fvariations within what the gene does. Maybe this gene you are talking about has th potential to do things other than change fur color, which you are only guessing at, but if it turns out to be the case then we just have somewhat broader limits to what the gene does. It can only do what it does. You haven't suggested that the gene is going to change, just that it has the potential to do some other things. Well, WHATEVER it can do is its limits, and mutations can only brinjg about variations within those limits. You get lost in the trees and miss the forest, Taq, probably an occupational hazard. Going on about the different functions of melanin in different contexts. But there's nothing you've said that contradicts the idea that it can only do what it does within the limits of the context in which it does it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses. Forexhr started out saying all that for all those processes, how did you miss it? those processes are given by many sources as THE Processes of Evolution, as processes that bring about evolution. They do occur, as he acknowledged. But they can't produce anything new, which is necessary if the ToE is correct. But I still don't completely understand his argument so I won't go beyond this. I just know you are obviously misunderstanding him if you think he didn't already know what you said in this post. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Taq YOU need evidence that those processes CAN produce something new because you merely assume it. We know a mutation to a gene for fur color can produce a different fur color, or to a gene for three or four different things can produce variations on those three or four different things. But can fish DNA come up with arms and legs or wings or fur? You'd have to prove that it could. All we really KNOW is that we'll get whatever the genetic stuff codes for, nothing else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm waiting patiently for you to answer my question: Why did the scientists who did the experiments fail to see the implications that you see. Why did the peer reviewers fail to see what you see? Why did the hundreds/thousands of semi-interested scientists who read the paper(s) fail to see what you see? They're like all of you here, they are so totally blindly committed to the ToE they won't even really entertain a challenge to it. So far I don't think anyone on this thread has fairly tried to deal with what forexhr has presented.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024