|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do "novel" features evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
OK, let us use your scenario. Yes, that is a change! From this combination: t1, t2 to this combination, t2, t1...that is exactly a change. Please answer the question. What is the real-world difference corresponding to the different "arrangement"? If one generation has blue eyes and earlobes, and the next generation has earlobes and blue eyes, then what "change" has occurred?
So, where is evolution and where is mutation? Do you imply that t3 will be formed? That is a fantasy! OK, I'll play. BUT you need to be sure that you know the meaning of "inheritable traits" because this will be the biggest blow to ToE. How can you show that t3 will be formed by mutation or evolution? We can watch new traits arising, but that of course involves looking at the real world rather than the muddled mess of verbiage in your head, and so you may have overlooked it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4384 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Please answer the question. What is the real-world difference corresponding to the different "arrangement"? If one generation has blue eyes and earlobes, and the next generation has earlobes and blue eyes, then what "change" has occurred? The change that occurred is the arrangement of its location. That is definitely a change. (Remember that there are only 2 traits in our example). That what we see in the real world in all living organisms, from gen1 to gen2.
We can watch new traits arising, but that of course involves looking at the real world rather than the muddled mess of verbiage in your head, and so you may have overlooked it. So, you are implying that t3 is arising even though it is not present in gen1? Am I right? So, meaning, the "inheritable traits, say t1, t2 of gen1 to gen2 is wrong? How can you explain that when ToE claimed that inheritable traits is part of evolution? Maybe you can enlighten me up since until now ToE and you is messing science.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The change that occurred is the arrangement of its location. How does a trait have a "location"?
That what we see in the real world ... What do we see? How can we look at two populations and say: now this population has blue eyes and earlobes, but that population has earlobes and blue eyes? In what way are the "arrangement" and the "location" of these two traits visible?
So, you are implying that t3 is arising even though it is not present in gen1? Am I right? So, meaning, the "inheritable traits, say t1, t2 of gen1 to gen2 is wrong? How can you explain that when ToE claimed that inheritable traits is part of evolution? Perhaps this meant something in your first language, but it seems to have lost something in translation.
Maybe you can enlighten me ... I'm not sure I can. Maybe the best I can do for you is advise you that if you keep quiet people won't notice how ignorant you are.
... up since until now ToE and you is messing science. Well, not according to scientists, who know about science, it isn't. If you, a non-scientist who is profoundly ignorant of science, have a different opinion, then I would suggest to you that maybe it is they who are right and you who is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi intellen,
... Instead of a hundred traits, let's consider two --- the two I've mentioned. Let t1 = having blue eyes, and t2 = having earlobes. What is the difference between the "arrangement" t1, t2 and the "arrangement" t2, t1? Yes, that is a change! From this combination: t1, t2 to this combination, t2, t1...that is exactly a change. Actually it is a neutral mutation that has no effect on the phenotype of the individual, they both will have blue eyes and earlobes, and selective pressure on them will be equal. Selection operates on the phenotype while reproduction acts on the genotype. The phenotype is those traits of the genotype that are expressed in the grown organism and that are subject to selection.
How can you show that t3 will be formed by mutation or evolution? First let's consider an individual that has a duplication mutation, and it has t1, t2a, and t2b ... ... is this a change? Yes No ... is this a neutral mutation? Yes No Are both versions of t2 needed for the earlobe to be expressed in the phenotype? Yes No Can t2b mutate while t2a is still expressed in the phenotype? Yes No If t2b is not expressed in the phenotype is it a neutral mutation? Yes No If If t2b is no longer the same as If t2a is it a t3? Yes No Can this t3 spread through the population if it is not subject to selection? Yes No Can further mutations affect t3 without affecting the rest of the traits? Yes No Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Actually it is a neutral mutation ... Not even that. It's simply meaningless, a distinction without a difference. Remember, we're talking here about phenotype, not genotype.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1298 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
My arguments are either valid or invalid. Please either refute my premises or refute my argument. Are you going to do that or are you going to ask me for evidence again? Okay, you initially stated that there is no way for keratin change into collagen but gave no explanation why. After all these are both protein molecules defined by their sequence of amino acids, so it does not seem unreasonable that a series of mutations over time could change one to another.In a later post you then elaborate that the reason being that during the change to collagen the original function as keratin would be destroyed. However as others have pointed out this argument would fail if the mutations resulted in collagen affected a duplicate of the keratin gene. It is well documented that genes can be become duplicated and one one of them subsequently become altered by mutations while the other retains it's original function. Look at pseudogenes such as steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, which humans have two of, one being disabled by an eight base-pair deletion (the same as found in chimpanzee's). Also if you looked into collagen or keratin you would know that they are not examples of single genes but each actually comprise of a group of proteins. Any one of these could have had mutations and then diversified through further duplication to form another protein or group of proteins. Of course having said all this I'm not saying that keratin actually change into collagen. I realise you are getting tired of people asking for evidence, but I would say when you first posted in this topic it came across as an off-hand post. But if you had taken your time and developed your argument, even including what you put into your second post in the thread, we would have a better understanding on where you were coming from and could have a more useful discussion. As you say you don't want to spend 2 hours writing a post, but then we may need to spend that time or more to do the same to give a satisfactory response.As for being off topic, as said above the change from one protein to another is fairly simple and likely to have happened in a unicellular or simple multicellular organisms. If we were discussing such changes in bacteria you ould have probably dismissed it as microevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dr Adequate,
Not even that. It's simply meaningless, a distinction without a difference. Yet it is a fairly common mutation to flip sections of DNA around without altering their expression in the phenotype. In some instances this can cause trouble with genes aligning properly during reproduction, but these would be large scale flips.
Remember, we're talking here about phenotype, not genotype. Yes, and any change to the genotype that is not expressed in the phenotype would be neutral, essentially by definition. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yet it is a fairly common mutation to flip sections of DNA around without altering their expression in the phenotype. Yes, but that's not what we're talking about. If the gene for eye color swapped places on a chromosome with the gene for earlobes, that would be a neutral mutation. But what can it even mean for two traits to swap places? It may be that intellen is trying to be wrong about the genotype rather than the phenotype, in which case now would be a good time for him to say so. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and this does not even begin to discuss the ramifications of the dual strand DNA with one trait version inherited from the mother and another from the father, and the matter of dominant and recessive genes and the possible mutation of recessive genes, nor the division of genes into chromosomes ....
So much to cover that needs to be brought down to elementary levels the mind boggles. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
foreveryoung writes: You cannot produce a tonsil from random mutation and natural selection where there was no tonsil before. The Italian Wall lizards evolved cecal valves in 30 generations. Not good enough for you? (First mentioned in Message 61. --Admin) Edited by Admin, : Add message reference.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Tangle,
The Italian Wall lizards evolved cecal valves in 30 generations. Not good enough for you? You presented this information in Message 61:
quote: Now we note that this is objective empirical evidence for the evolution of a new trait to have occurred. We also note that this does not necessarily mean that we have a new species, but that is not a concern in this thread. The questions are:
I note that some of this information is included above, but perhaps I can play something of the devil's advocate here so we can hone this information into the level needed here ... Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 610 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I don't have a clue? Take your clue and shove it. I am out of here. I have had more than I can stand with you assholes . Good bye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
RAZD writes: how do we know that it is a new feature and did not exist in the ancestral population? Because the ancestral population still exists on the first island and can be examined. I have to assume that has been done, otherwise someone will feel very silly......
and if it is a new feature then how do we know that it evolved rather than just appeared? As in Goddidit? I don't think we can. If god wants the lizard to look as though it evolved a gut capable of digesting cellulose, I guess we're knackered. PZ Myers blogged about it a few years ago Page not found | ScienceBlogs In the follow-up posts there, there is some discussion about whether the cecal valves could have appeared due to phenotype plasticity ie. the genes for the valves already existed but were switched on by environmental factors. I don't know whether further genetic work has been done since then. Perhaps a real biologist/geneticist with access to research papers can find out? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
foreveryoung writes: I don't have a clue? Take your clue and shove it. I am out of here. I have had more than I can stand with you assholes . Good bye. Well foreveryoung, it appears that you want to live up to your name.Bye bye, come back when you're ready to behave like a grown-up Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Tangle,
Well foreveryoung, it appears that ... This is unnecessary. Remember that we are dealing with people that are having trouble understanding new concepts and information. Frequently their understanding of science is being challenged because they are either underinformed or misinformed. We are also dealing with people that have strong beliefs, especially about various aspects of evolution, that are due to this underinformation\misinformation being presented to them in a religious context. We are up against cognitive dissonance, a psychological behavior that we are all subject to, that resists new information that is seen to contradict personal opinions and beliefs.
The initial denial can lead to disparaging the dissonant information as being silly or hilarious or the product of some kind of conspiracy. It can block their acceptance of new ideas and make it difficult to comprehend what is actually being said. These defense mechanisms can also lead to the person lashing out at those providing the dissonant information. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024