Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 9:35 PM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, Capt Stormfield, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 29/36 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material? (Lost Thread)
Huntard
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 1 of 19 (489228)
11-25-2008 12:45 PM


Since the original has been lost to the great black hole of the forum :P, this is the restart for the thread.

The op was as follows:

Wardog25 writes:

Could you provide me with any specific scientific procedures that have resulted in a gain of NEW genetic material for an organism? (not a changing of current material, nor a doubling of current material. New material. New genes, proteins, etc.)

What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.

Bottom line is, it has to add NEW genetic material for the mechanism to work.

So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new. This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".

We are still waiting for the tests that show the introduction of new genetic material. So at this point, the evolutionary mechanism gives more support to creation than it does to the theory of evolution.

(and I appologize for my use of the word "species". I forget that I come from other forums where people freak out if you use anything Biblically referenced.)

This is a quote of mine from another thread, but it was off topic, so I'm hoping to start a new discussion.

So can anyone provide any documented lab results, procedures, tests, etc. that have shown an organism gaining genetic material?

Clarification: By new genetic material, I mean exactly that. New. A fruit fly developing a leg that comes out of its head does not count as new. The genetic material for a leg already existed, so there is nothing "new" there, it's just moved. Same thing with doubling of genetic material. That only doubles what we already have, it does not produce anything "new". For the evolutionary mechanism to work, there HAS to be new genetic material formed. So where is the evidence?

To this Admin had placed the following warning:

Admin writes:

PLEASE READ THIS FIRST

The first 15 messages of this thread are discussion between the originator and moderators. You can skip this discussion, but please read all of this message, then understand that in the opinion of the moderators the first order of business in this thread should be reaching common ground regarding the definition of new genetic material. Then skip to Message 16. --Admin

The thread went along, and then Wardog25 got back in again with this message:

Wardog25 writes:

Sorry that I have not contributed to this. Life is too busy.

I actually was under the impression that the title of the thread was going to be changed, but oh well.

By "material", I meant something larger than just a new pattern in the DNA. I even mean something larger than say, the ability for bacteria to digest nylon.

An organism gaining the ability to digest something new, or a bacteria gaining resistance to an antibiotic is not demonstrating that the organism is on its way to developing a new structure. And it certainly isn't demonstrating that the distant offspring of that organism could ever evolve into another organism.

Bottom line is, if humans evolved from something smaller than a one-celled organism, there HAD to be a time when the "genetic material" for an arm, or a nose, or heart tissue did not exist. It came into existence.

So where is the mechanism that makes these new things come about? How many generations of fruit flies do we have to watch to demonstrate this? They may grow a leg out of their head, but they never even gain a more functional leg, much less a "new structure" that is even better than a leg. If we can't find evidence of such things, how can we take that a step further and believe that a fruit fly could ever evolve into anything else?

So call it "new genetic material" or "evidence of major morphological changes". Either is fine with me.

Does that clear up what I'm looking for?

To which Percy replied with:

Percy writes:

Wardog25 writes:

Bottom line is, if humans evolved from something smaller than a one-celled organism, there HAD to be a time when the "genetic material" for an arm, or a nose, or heart tissue did not exist. It came into existence.

So where is the mechanism that makes these new things come about?


The mechanism is descent with modification and natural selection.

If you're looking for a structure within the cell tucked amidst the mitochondria and ribosomes that directs evolution, no such structure exists. Evolution is undirected. It makes do with whatever already exists or is provided through mutation.

--Percy

PaulK replied with:

PaulK writes:

quote:
Bottom line is, if humans evolved from something smaller than a one-celled organism, there HAD to be a time when the "genetic material" for an arm, or a nose, or heart tissue did not exist. It came into existence.

And we know from the fossil record that that required a whole long (VERY long) sequence of smaller changes.

If you're going to ask for documented changes you are going to have to ask for changes that reasonably COULD be documented. Asking for full documentation of the evolution of even a primitive vertebrate from a single-celled organism is grossly unreasonable.

So, can you define what you want clearly enough that we can get it down to something reasonable ? Or are you just going to make demands that cannot possibly be met regardless of the truth of the matter so you can claim a "victory" ?

And Bluegenes replied with:

Bluegenes writes:

Wardog25 writes:

How many generations of fruit flies do we have to watch to demonstrate this?


To put things into perspective, a fruit fly generation is about 12 days, giving us about 30 generations per year or about 3000 per century, if anyone got around to observing them that long.

3000 generations is very little in evolutionary time. Our ancestors were Homo Sapiens 3000 generations ago.

You could witness the beginnings of the process of speciation in fast reproducing creatures like fruit flies, and that has been observed.

Then, Wardog25 got back in and made this post:

Wardog25 writes:

Scientists have been observing E coli for over 40,000 generations and have yet to find anything more than these small-scale changes mentioned above (resistance to antibiotic, etc)

If larger changes take much longer than 40,000 generations in every organism, the evolutionary time-line is in serious trouble.

Cavediver then responded:

Cavediver writes:

If larger changes take much longer than 40,000 generations in every organism, the evolutionary time-line is in serious trouble.

:laugh: Really? You ask about growing new legs? When did our ancestors become tetrapods? Err, that would be nearly 400 million years ago? How many generations is that? And how many extra legs have evolved in all of the descendents of those first tetrapods? And those first tetrapods, did their legs just poof out of nothing, or were they actually just gradual changes to pre-existing structures? Oh yes, lobe-finned fish fins... what a surprise. So, evolution has apparently taken us, over the course of 400 million years, from four limbs to, err, four limbs. I must admit that large scale change of this magnitude is a real problem for evolution. :laugh:

And that's all I could find from Google cache.

What follows is the reply I made to Wardog25's post (If I remember correctly)

Huntard writes:

I would like to point the following out:

Modern day extant species did not evolve for other modern day extant species. The bacteria you speak of would be very different genetically thousands, let alone millions, of years ago.

And that's all I really remember well enough to post about, I do remember Lucytehape coming in and bringing up some points to refute my claims, but I can't recall them well enough to reproduce them here.

That's kinda where we left off, so now, let's resume :D


I hunt for the truth
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bluegenes, posted 11-25-2008 4:44 PM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 12 by wardog25, posted 12-01-2008 5:08 PM Huntard has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 19 (489231)
11-25-2008 12:51 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 556 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 3 of 19 (489256)
11-25-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
11-25-2008 12:45 PM


Duplication + advantageous mutation + a De Novo gene.
It is obviously difficult to define what a creationist means by "new genetic material", but things that seem to fit are new genes produced by duplication followed by mutation, and a gene originating in non-coding DNA becoming a protein coding gene.

So I gave examples of both in the old thread.

The douc langur monkey has a duplicated gene which has mutated to perform part of the function of its "parent" gene more efficiently, leaving the old gene to specialise in another part of its original function. This, I claim, represents an increase in "genetic material", new information, and an increase in complexity.

There's an article on the subject here

An example of a new protein coding gene coming from non-coding DNA has been identified in yeast by the authors of this very interesting paper:

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/179/1/487

I put both in the old thread because they're interesting stuff, whether creationists want to consider them examples of the evolution of new genetic material or not!

"Hey! I've evolved a clever new gene in my digestive system. That should prove something to those silly elitist humans who insist they're not related to me!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2008 12:45 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 4 of 19 (489288)
11-25-2008 9:49 PM


How do you tell the difference between new genetic material and existing genetic material being modified and working together with other genes in new found ways? Especially in organisms that are extinct.
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2008 10:44 PM obvious Child has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 19 (489290)
11-25-2008 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by obvious Child
11-25-2008 9:49 PM


The broader question
How do you tell the difference between new genetic material and existing genetic material being modified and working together with other genes in new found ways? Especially in organisms that are extinct.

What is the importance of "new genetic material" anyway. If there are new functions, what is the difference whether the genetic material is new or just changed.

Does this go back to the creationist belief that humans are devolving since what they call the curse, so they are unwilling to accept new genetic material as it counters that belief?

If this is not the case, can anyone explain what the problem is with "new genetic material?"


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by obvious Child, posted 11-25-2008 9:49 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by obvious Child, posted 11-25-2008 11:26 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 7 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-26-2008 1:00 AM Coyote has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 6 of 19 (489291)
11-25-2008 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
11-25-2008 10:44 PM


Re: The broader question
Creationists tend to like to argue that stupid point. I agree it doesn't matter. New information and traits are new information and traits regardless if they came from new genes or old genes working together in new ways.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2008 10:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 19 (489296)
11-26-2008 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
11-25-2008 10:44 PM


Re: The broader question
Coyote writes:

What is the importance of "new genetic material" anyway. If there are new functions, what is the difference whether the genetic material is new or just changed.

If there are new functions then evolution works. The problem is how do you discern whether new functionality has been added.

Consider a computer program with it's various methods. You can run the program without ever using one or more of the methods. If you have functions that were not originally programmed then you have new information and macroevolution.

If you have realisation of existing functions then it's just adapation, precoded.

The problem for evolutionists, is to show how code can be inserted into the genome. Code cannot be built piecewise, it has to be intelligently conceived and inserted as an entire new function.

Not likely.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2008 10:44 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 11-26-2008 6:52 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 11-26-2008 7:50 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 11-26-2008 10:29 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 11-26-2008 7:11 PM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2174 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 19 (489308)
11-26-2008 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by LucyTheApe
11-26-2008 1:00 AM


Re: The broader question
The problem for evolutionists, is to show how code can be inserted into the genome.

Very easily by multiple mutational mechanisms.

Code cannot be built piecewise

But it can be modified piecewise from other pre-existing code to produce new functions.

it has to be intelligently conceived and inserted as an entire new function.

Pure assertion.

Not likely.

And yet done repeatedly, albeit bar the 'intelligently conceived' aspect.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-26-2008 1:00 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 9 of 19 (489313)
11-26-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by LucyTheApe
11-26-2008 1:00 AM


Re: The broader question
LucyTheApe writes:

The problem for evolutionists, is to show how code can be inserted into the genome.

As Wounded says, research has demonstrated this innumerable times. Some were described in the predecessor thread, and in Message 3 in this thread Bluegenes presents a couple of them again. So when you ask:

The problem is how do you discern whether new functionality has been added.

This is precisely the question that Bluegenes has already answered for you, before you even asked. Let me summarize in a bit more detail this time by pulling some information out of the articles.

First Bluegenes mentions the douc langur monkey, and he provides this Science Daily article as a reference: Gene Duplication Adapts To Changing Environment, which poses this question:

Science Daily writes:

Evolutionary theories assert that some of these duplicated genes may acquire new functions and take on new roles. But exactly how do these changes occur? And do they, as scientists suspect, really help organisms adapt to their environments?

That's pretty much the same question you're asking, right? It turns out that while most primate species have one RNASE1 gene, the douc langur monkey has two, RNASE1 and RNASE1B. Genetic analysis revealed that the RNASE1 gene was duplicated about 4 million years ago, and that the original has remained largely unchanged while the duplicate experienced rapid change. We know which is the duplicate because it's in a different location in the genome from where RNASE1 gene occurs in all other primates.

And so today, unlike most other primates, the douc langur monkey has two flavors of RNASE1 genes. One is the original RNASE1 gene that carries out the original function of producing enzymes that "digest dietary RNA" and "degrade double stranded RNA". And the other is the new RNASE1 gene that also digests dietary RNA, but much more efficiently for the lower pH levels of douc langur intestines.

So whereas before there was one gene, the RNASE1 gene, performing two functions, one of them not very well, we now have two genes. One, the original RNASE1 gene, is still performing its original function. The other, the new RNASE1B gene, is performing one of the functions of the RNASE1 gene, but much more efficiently.

Bluegenes' other example concerned yeast. The title of the article he cited was De Novo Origination of a New Protein-Coding Gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and it appears in the journal Genetics.

The article describes the BSC4 gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a gene thtat does not appear in any of its closely related cousin species. The corresponding sequences in those cousin species are non-coding, in other words, they represent what are commonly referred to as junk DNA. But in Saccharomyces cerevisiae the BSC4 gene encodes a 132-amino-acid-long peptide that appears to contribute to DNA repair during periods of starvation. Random mutations in the non-coding area transformed the non-coding DNA into a coding gene.

So there we have two examples of the appearance of new genetic material, one in the douc langur monkey through gene duplication followed by mutation, and another in Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast through the change of non-coding DNA into coding DNA through the process of mutation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-26-2008 1:00 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 19 (489330)
11-26-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by LucyTheApe
11-26-2008 1:00 AM


Re: The broader question
Coyote writes:

What is the importance of "new genetic material" anyway. If there are new functions, what is the difference whether the genetic material is new or just changed.

If there are new functions then evolution works. The problem is how do you discern whether new functionality has been added.

That's easy. And that's not the question. The question is why so many creationists insist on "new genetic material" rather than "new functionality." It appears to me to be a strawman.

Consider a computer program with it's various methods. You can run the program without ever using one or more of the methods. If you have functions that were not originally programmed then you have new information and macroevolution.

If you have realisation of existing functions then it's just adapation, precoded.

Adaptation? Just adaptation? What do you think evolution is? Evolution is a lot of little adaptations that add up over time.

I think one problem is that creationists are looking for a bird to give birth to (or hatch) a reptile or something equally silly. I've seen them write that the individual who has the first example of a mutation would have no one to mate with. This is both silly and false, as the changes are gradual, not drastic as some creationists seem to expect.

The problem for evolutionists, is to show how code can be inserted into the genome. Code cannot be built piecewise, it has to be intelligently conceived and inserted as an entire new function.

Not likely.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is simply no scientific evidence of "intelligently conceived and inserted." This "intelligent" business is pure religion.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-26-2008 1:00 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 11 of 19 (489400)
11-26-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by LucyTheApe
11-26-2008 1:00 AM


Re: The broader question
quote:
. Code cannot be built piecewise, it has to be intelligently conceived and inserted as an entire new function.

Come again? Chromosome mixing occurs in sperm cells. That leads to new traits. How is that intelligently conceived?

Furthermore, how is a viral vector intelligently conceived?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-26-2008 1:00 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 3632 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 12 of 19 (490020)
12-01-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
11-25-2008 12:45 PM


I would like to point the following out:

Modern day extant species did not evolve for other modern day extant species. The bacteria you speak of would be very different genetically thousands, let alone millions, of years ago.

So how would a bacteria from millions of years ago and a bacteria from today differ? One is ready to evolve at a moments notice and the other isn't? That's not a statement backed by evidence. Sounds like a statement of faith to me.

Unless you can prove that bacteria of today are somehow at the top of the evolutionary ladder, it would seem that the mechanism of evolution "should" affect them as it always has, and therefore we should see more changes in 40,000 generations if that mechanism actually works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2008 12:45 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 12-01-2008 5:28 PM wardog25 has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 13 of 19 (490028)
12-01-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by wardog25
12-01-2008 5:08 PM


wardog25 writes:

So how would a bacteria from millions of years ago and a bacteria from today differ?


Genetically they differ a great deal. And even morphologically a bacteria from millions of years ago would look very different then a bacteria today. Within the possibilities of these one celled organisms of course.

One is ready to evolve at a moments notice and the other isn't?

No. Bacteria evolve all the time, as do all other species.

That's not a statement backed by evidence. Sounds like a statement of faith to me.

Which is why I didn't say that. I said that the bacteria of today are different from those millions of years ago, and so, you should not expect a modern day bacteria to take the same evolutionary path. The same goes for fish and frogs, modern day fish are VERY different from millions of years ago, and so, will NEVER give birth to a modern frog (not that the fishes of millions of years ago did this). That's just not how evolution works.

Unless you can prove that bacteria of today are somehow at the top of the evolutionary ladder

There is no "evolutionary ladder" there is only being adapted to your environment. Most bacteria are VERY WELL adapted to their environment, and thus selective pressure to change drastically is absent.

it would seem that the mechanism of evolution "should" affect them as it always has,

It DOES still affect them, the selective pressure is just very low.

and therefore we should see more changes in 40,000 generations if that mechanism actually works.

Wrong, especially in the lab, where the selective pressure are even smaller. Or, if it is bigger, they DO show significant change. Does bacteria that become immune to antibiotics ring a bell? If an antibiotic is introduced into the bacteria's environment, the selective pressure increases greatly, and as a result, the change the population undergoes is also significant (it becomes immune to that particular antibiotic).

I think you also have the misconception that man is somehow the "end product" of evolution. We are not, we are simply another step evolution takes.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by wardog25, posted 12-01-2008 5:08 PM wardog25 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CosmicChimp, posted 12-02-2008 7:37 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
King Mojo-Jojo
Junior Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 11-30-2008


Message 14 of 19 (490036)
12-01-2008 6:32 PM


..
Whats an evolutionist?

Is it a person who accept the theory of evolution posed by Mr Darwin?


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 12-01-2008 9:50 PM King Mojo-Jojo has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 15 of 19 (490048)
12-01-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by King Mojo-Jojo
12-01-2008 6:32 PM


Re: ..
The simple answer is "Yes," an evolutionist is someone who accepts the theory of evolution.

The more accurate answer is that in the continual skirmishing between science and religion, when discussion rolls onto the creation/evolution battlefield it refers to those with a scientific perspective, as opposed to those of a religious perspective who are called creationists. Or IDists if they're of a more modern bent.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by King Mojo-Jojo, posted 12-01-2008 6:32 PM King Mojo-Jojo has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019