Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
255 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons (2 members, 253 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,693 Year: 3,339/14,102 Month: 280/724 Week: 38/91 Day: 3/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 691 of 1385 (851868)
05-03-2019 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by Faith
05-03-2019 1:30 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
quote:

I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain.

DNA certainly can be “snipped out of the DNA chain”. It’s called a deletion.

quote:

What really happens is that it's not expressed in the new population because other genes dominate.

That really doesn’t make sense. Even if we aren’t talking about actually sequencing the DNA. I think you’re failing to understand the terminology.

And what do you mean when you deny that mutations are a natural phenomenon ? Are you suggesting that they are human-created, or a supernatural phenomenon ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 1:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 2:09 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 692 of 1385 (851869)
05-03-2019 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 691 by PaulK
05-03-2019 2:06 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
so explain how a whole gene gets snipped out of the DNA chain please, how often it happens and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2019 2:06 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2019 2:19 PM Faith has responded
 Message 695 by Theodoric, posted 05-03-2019 2:33 PM Faith has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 693 of 1385 (851872)
05-03-2019 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by Faith
05-03-2019 1:30 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletion_(genetics)


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 1:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 12:44 AM DrJones* has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 694 of 1385 (851873)
05-03-2019 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by Faith
05-03-2019 2:09 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Apparently it’s quite common in bacteria.


Gene loss by deletion is a common evolutionary process in bacteria, as exemplified by bacteria with small genomes that have evolved from bacteria with larger genomes by reductive processes.

And this article explains how it can happen, although it’s rather technical


the loss of a gene can be the consequence of an abrupt mutational event, such as an unequal crossing over during meiosis or the mobilization of a transposable or viral element that leads to the sudden physical removal of the gene from an organism's genome

Now how about answering my question? Why do you say that mutations are not a natural phenomenon ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 2:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 12:42 AM PaulK has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 695 of 1385 (851875)
05-03-2019 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by Faith
05-03-2019 2:09 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Are you totally incapable of doing even basic research? That's right you will claim it is leftist plot if you cannot find any evidence to support you.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 2:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:30 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 2 days)
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 696 of 1385 (851881)
05-03-2019 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by Faith
05-03-2019 1:16 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Faith writes:


That's just chance working in mutations, nothing to do with "usage or fecundity," which I assume to be a fantasy explanation either you or something you read made up.

Are you saying it is just a fantasy that the chimp and human genomes are different from one another?

Genes only change by which alleles make it up, or by mutations which in most cases do not change what the gene does at all, although in very rare cases could possibly bring about a new version of the gene's expression, but in some cases produces a disease process and in yet other cases simply kills the allele altogether.

Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps if it isn't due to beneficial differences between their genomes?

The onjly thing that could alter existing alleles and produce new alleles is mutation and that as I've said above is a very iffy process as far as any desirable result goes. I'm always thinking from the creationist view of the original genome and that is an unbroken chain of DNA that is functional at all points, many genes for just one trait in most cases, each having two alleles that in combination all together create a huge variety of variations on that trait.

If changing a genome makes the genome worse, how can there be different genomes in different original kinds? According to your view of genetics, there should only be one species in existence with the one and only possible genome. If you change that genome at all the species ceases to exist.

No, the form of the traits that develop can't exceed whatever the limits are that are already built into the genome.

Then there should only be one created kind, but there isn't. Obviously, those limits don't exist. If genomes can't be changed to produce a new kind, then even a creator could not do it. If changing a genome can produce a new kind, then you need to explain why the observed processes of mutation could not produce those changes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 1:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 12:07 AM Taq has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 697 of 1385 (851892)
05-03-2019 11:45 PM


….

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 698 of 1385 (851893)
05-04-2019 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by Taq
05-03-2019 3:31 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Are you saying it is just a fantasy that the chimp and human genomes are different from one another?

I don't get the question but the answer is that they are different because they are different creatures with different built in genomes that contain the genetic stuff for that species and no other.

Genes only change by which alleles make it up, or by mutations which in most cases do not change what the gene does at all, although in very rare cases could possibly bring about a new version of the gene's expression, but in some cases produces a disease process and in yet other cases simply kills the allele altogether.

Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps if it isn't due to beneficial differences between their genomes?

You have the ToE perspective that sees one evolving from the other but since I don't look at it that way I see two different creatures each with its own genome hardwired to its own characteristics since Creation. I'm arguing on the basis of how I understand mutations to affect a genome and that they can't affect it outside of its own created purpose in building the body of the species it is created for.

The onjly thing that could alter existing alleles and produce new alleles is mutation and that as I've said above is a very iffy process as far as any desirable result goes. I'm always thinking from the creationist view of the original genome and that is an unbroken chain of DNA that is functional at all points, many genes for just one trait in most cases, each having two alleles that in combination all together create a huge variety of variations on that trait.

If changing a genome makes the genome worse, how can there be different genomes in different original kinds? According to your view of genetics, there should only be one species in existence with the one and only possible genome. If you change that genome at all the species ceases to exist.

I can't follow this reasoning AT ALL, I have no idea what you have in mind. The sense in which mutations make a genome worse is that they interrupt functioning alleles which in most cases has a neutral affect and doesn't change the product, but in some cases may kill a gene or produce a disease. This can happen in any species, in the genome for that one species, or in any other species independently of one another.

No, the form of the traits that develop can't exceed whatever the limits are that are already built into the genome.

Then there should only be one created kind, but there isn't.

This makes absolutely no sense. Each species has its own genome that produces the characteristics of that species and only that species. The ability to vary many of its characteristics is built into the genome for that species and only that species: that's the limitation on each sepcies' genome. You can get variations on any particular trait of that species, but you can't get a characteristic that doesn't belong to that species. You can get a variety of sizes and colors etc and to some extent some minor structural differences but you aren't going to get even the beginning of a mammal foot from a rodent foot. And so far nobody has even suggested a pathway for such a thing to occur. I say it simply can't occur, the changes are not possible because the genome is confined to producing the characteristics of its own species.

Obviously, those limits don't exist. If genomes can't be changed to produce a new kind, then even a creator could not do it. If changing a genome can produce a new kind, then you need to explain why the observed processes of mutation could not produce those changes.

I have a terrible time following your reasoning but I HAVE tried to explain that mutations can only alter the characteristics of the species the genome belongs to, at best can vary it but it will always be recognizable as a trait of that particular species and no other. It will be a rodent foot, not the foot of any other creature, no matter how it may vary in superficial ways. There is no mechanism for mutations to alter the genome to produce anything else than those characteristics.

I hope you can follow my creationist reasoning although I'm having so much trouble making sense of your evo reasoning.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Taq, posted 05-03-2019 3:31 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 767 by Taq, posted 05-06-2019 5:07 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 699 of 1385 (851894)
05-04-2019 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 694 by PaulK
05-03-2019 2:19 PM


Side issue: Gene deletion
I gather it is a rare occurrence except in bacteria, and in any case it doesn't affect this discussion that I can see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2019 2:19 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2019 2:49 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 700 of 1385 (851895)
05-04-2019 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 693 by DrJones*
05-03-2019 2:19 PM


Side issue: gene deletion
Clearly an undesirable event, but one that doesn't seem to affect this discussion in any case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by DrJones*, posted 05-03-2019 2:19 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by DrJones*, posted 05-04-2019 2:41 AM Faith has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 701 of 1385 (851903)
05-04-2019 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by Faith
05-04-2019 12:44 AM


Re: Side issue: gene deletion
Clearly an undesirable event, but one that doesn't seem to affect this discussion in any case.

Faith if it wasn't for the fact that we're "communicating" through the written word I'd suspect that you're illiterate. My post was in response to your comment:

I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain

I gave you a link (admittedly slightly broken but how hard would it have been for you to scroll to the correct entry) explaining just how such a thing could occur.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 12:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:28 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 702 of 1385 (851905)
05-04-2019 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 699 by Faith
05-04-2019 12:42 AM


Re: Side issue: Gene deletion
quote:

I gather it is a rare occurrence except in bacteria...

You should try reading the links provided.


The recent increase in genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity.

There are plenty of citations to papers about multi-cellular life there, too.

quote:

...and in any case it doesn't affect this discussion that I can see.

It is certainly relevant as to how species can evolve.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 12:42 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by edge, posted 05-04-2019 8:23 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 705 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:24 AM PaulK has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 703 of 1385 (851907)
05-04-2019 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by Dredge
05-03-2019 4:02 AM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
... lamingtons, for example. You may not have heard of lamingtons - they’re native to Australia. A lamington a day keeps the doctor away.

Chocolate or cream filled or plain?

That what I meant (which should have been bleedin’ obvious).

So the evidence of Pelycodus shows "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied.

It may infer common ancestry via biological evolution … but common ancestry via genetic experiments performed by aliens is a much better explanation. However, there is no way of testing either hypothesis.

Except that the evidence shows an absence of outside tampering, while common ancestry in living species is observed and thus is a known process. Positing an invisible undetectable process is not needed to explain the evidence that matches the observed common ancestry process that is nown to occur.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 4:02 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 863 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2019 6:03 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 864 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2019 6:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 608 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 704 of 1385 (851909)
05-04-2019 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by PaulK
05-04-2019 2:49 AM


Re: Side issue: Gene deletion
You should try reading the links provided.

Casual dismissal is easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2019 2:49 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 705 of 1385 (851920)
05-04-2019 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by PaulK
05-04-2019 2:49 AM


Re: Side issue: Gene deletion
What mutations do isn't important enough to my argument to spend time on it. If there is something you want to get across you need to write it out yourself. From the little you did report I can see that a deletion would certainly change the gene frequency in a population where it occurred, but a change in gene frequency is still just a change within the genome of a species, it doesn't add anything to the genome that could even begin to point toward the formation of a new species.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2019 2:49 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2019 11:10 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021