Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
83 online now:
Parasomnium, PaulK (2 members, 81 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,158 Year: 6,270/6,534 Month: 463/650 Week: 1/232 Day: 1/28 Hour: 0/1


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 761 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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 07-16-2018 2:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 106 of 248 (836429)
07-16-2018 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Taq
07-16-2018 4:43 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 4:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 5:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 248 (836434)
07-16-2018 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by JonF
07-16-2018 5:27 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by JonF, posted 07-16-2018 5:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 6:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 07-16-2018 9:45 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 248 (836437)
07-16-2018 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Taq
07-16-2018 6:00 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Shouldn't need evidence, it's well known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 6:00 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 07-16-2018 8:37 PM Faith has replied
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 12:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 248 (836441)
07-16-2018 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by JonF
07-16-2018 9:45 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 07-16-2018 9:45 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2018 12:06 AM Faith has replied
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 07-17-2018 9:03 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 1:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 1:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 248 (836442)
07-16-2018 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
07-16-2018 8:37 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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 variations
Different 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 07-16-2018 8:37 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 248 (836444)
07-17-2018 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
07-17-2018 12:06 AM


Re: No New Functions?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2018 12:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2018 12:23 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 07-17-2018 11:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 248 (836448)
07-17-2018 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by forexhr
07-17-2018 1:53 AM


….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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 1:53 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 4:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 248 (836467)
07-17-2018 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taq
07-17-2018 1:03 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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."
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MC1R

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 1:03 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 4:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 248 (836473)
07-17-2018 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Taq
07-17-2018 4:07 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 4:07 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Taq, posted 07-18-2018 12:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 248 (836554)
07-19-2018 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
07-19-2018 8:15 AM


Re: Wrong again
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2018 8:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2018 12:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 151 by Taq, posted 07-19-2018 1:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 152 of 248 (836589)
07-19-2018 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Taq
07-19-2018 1:10 PM


Re: Wrong again
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Taq, posted 07-19-2018 1:10 PM Taq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 155 of 248 (836645)
07-20-2018 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by ringo
07-20-2018 11:52 AM


Re: Wrong again
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 5:43 PM Faith 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