Summations Only

Tangle, as interesting as your examples are, surely they just show change in function, but not increased complexity. Yes deletions can change a species into a new one, disabling of a gene too. Adjustments to protein production can replace a function with a new one. But how do you add an extra functional gene? Whenever an added gene produces proteins the duplication of the proteins damages fitness to an organism. Have you got any examples of successful and natural increases to the number of protein producing genes?

Taq, regarding that mice example, its assumed that the extra human brain gene is a duplication because of its similarity to the original. I believe in intelligent design, and so that extra gene appears to me designed in humans to add brain function. That gene was always there.Regarding Pancrustaceans, wasn't that study also done under evolutionary assumptions? Their conclusions were based on a phylogenetic tree which is assuming interrelationships based on comparing similarities and relative complexity with the underlying assumption of evolution. Without that I don't see much proof of increased complexity as opposed to a variety of creatures already designed like that.Edited by mindspawn, : Identify who I'm replying to

Thanks for the welcome herebedragonsWhen we observe two similar species, one that has an extra coding region :
1) The extra region could have evolved
2) The missing region could have devolved complexity
3) Both species could be designed like that (intelligent design)

herebedragons, if the populations started off as duplication free, and then duplications are witnessed in the lab coming naturally from the duplication free population then you would have a point. (provided the duplication is also protein coding and improves fitness). To merely observe two species are different and assume the order of events is the less complex first, and the more complex later, is just that, an assumption.Maybe I misread your link , but it seemed to be basing its assumptions of additional genes being created millions of years ago, which seemed to indicate to me that the gene duplications were not observed as created in the lab in current time-frames. Did I misread it?I am not dismissing anything, just because there is a complex organism and a less complex organism, does not prove your point that the more complex came from the less complex. Disabling and deletions is frequently observed, surely the more likely assumption is a disabling and then subsequent deletions as that area of the genome is no longer functional? Why not assume the more observed process, rather than the less observed process?Regarding your other questions , yes I do believe in genetic entropy, that is what I was referring to. Sometimes the devolution/de-complexifying can increase fitness, not just be damaging.Regarding duplication of protein production, this is just what I have observed, I could be wrong in the scope of the principle but I've generally observed that when you increase protein production above its normal state this would cause excess protein and damage the fitness of the organism. (eg Down's syndrome)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Taq, I believe evolutionists and creationists are in the same position that our own views both fit the evidence, and yet its hard to disprove the other's view. Just as you may see evolution in the chromosomal organization of an organism, I see intelligent design.I cannot prove my position. But its a viable hypothesis, as evolution is a viable hypothesis.

TAQ said: "We do observe duplications occuring in the lab. While we may not witness a specific duplication, we already know that there are natural mechanisms that result in duplications. It's a bit coming upon a salt crystal. We assume that the salt crystal formed by the evaporation of a saline solution. We do not assume that Leprechauns magically poofed it into being from nothing. Why? Because the natural mechanism is a sufficient explanation that has observable evidence behind it."I do believe in duplications, have any been shown to be protein coding, where both the original and the duplicate are protein coding, and the organism improves fitness?

Taq, that article at first glance seems to make a very strong point in your favor. However on further analysis there are two definite processes required for evolution according to the article itself:"DUPLICATION of structural genes is believed to be a prerequisite for evolution because it allows forbidden MUTATIONS of the REDUNDANT copy while preserving the advantageous parental gene"According to the article evolution requires:
Firstly there is the creation of a REDUNDANT COPY (duplication)
Secondly there are MUTATIONS to the redundant copy that activate it in a positive way, where the extra proteins have benefitWithout seeing the rest of the article it appears that they merely proved the first stage of evolution (duplication) had fitness benefits, a redundant copy will often benefit an organism. They are 100% clear that the second stage, subsequent mutation had not occurred yet. This improved fitness through redundant duplication is especially prevalent in plants whereby duplications may add hardiness to an organism by providing an alternative option when there is DNA damage to that portion of the DNA."Using insecticide-resistant Myzus persicae, we provide evidence here for gene duplication WITHOUT SUBSEQUENT MUTATION, conferring a definite selective advantage to intact higher organisms in adverse environmental conditions."Secondly they do not provide evidence that the duplication occurred from a population of organisms in which the duplication was not originally evident. ie the article does not give the background of how the duplication was established.Edited by mindspawn, : Adding clarityEdited by mindspawn, : Additional point

I don't see the emphasis of those authors as you do, but anyway, I agree with you that the non-mutated duplication can cause improved fitness. Inactive duplications create hardiness and therefore have a function.This would not explain the number of active protein coding beneficial genes you find in a human. Evolution claims these were evolved from fewer genes. How?

The article did not give enough information on the duplicates. Were they protein coding? Were they definitely duplicates or were there two similar breeds in the same environment, one of which proliferated under certain conditions, the other dying off?Maybe the more complex population was the original population, and the less complex population died off under certain conditions? Evolutionists often assume increased complexity over time, which is an assumption.You cannot trust the conclusions without looking at the evidence for the conclusions, I prefer to look at the evidence, of which very little was put forward in that article.

Taq, unfortunately they seem to want me to pay $34 to read that article so I will have to take your word on it. So you say the duplicate gene did produce proteins.Now about the duplication, was it a currently observed duplication from a population that only had one such gene or was the "duplication" assumed to be a duplication of that gene from times past? Sometimes genes are similar, and sometimes one may get disabled over time, and then that dormant gene could get deselected out the population.Regarding unsupported claims, I am new here and explaining my worldview, but I will be more careful in future to provide supporting evidence, thanks for pointing that out.

No problem. regarding the duplication, I feel maybe you misunderstood my question. Why would you feel that a duplication has taken place in this particular instance.The other alternatives are
a) two similar but seperate species of aphids
b) A sub-species of the aphid had a missing gene. In most conditions it retained fitness. This subspecies had less resistance to pesticide than the original species.Edited by mindspawn, : Clarification

Dr A, that's too theoretical for me. Its just when we are discussing an example of possible duplication, there is the possiblity of a mutation involving a lost gene, instead of a mutation involving a duplicated gene. Nothing wrong in checking for this. I have been in discussions with evolutionists before during which they insisted the more complex organism came first without any evidence for it.

"That said, there are of course situations where we do identify a complex organism as having evolved from a less complex organism, but the theory of evolution is based on changes in species that result in fitness rather than complexity."NoNukes, you say "of course", but I haven't seen any convincing cases yet involving added active coding genes, where the complexity comes later, and fitness is improved. Taq is making some good points, maybe he can convince me that the complexity came later in his example.

"There were no sub-species either. They freely mated throughout the population. Also, the gene isn't "missing". It just so happened that the duplication had not spread through the entire population yet."Why do you eliminate the possibility that it was a deletion that was being eliminated from the population? ie there is the possibility that the original population had two of these genes, some of the later population had one such gene which was fine until confronted by pesticides and this exposed the vulnerability of the later mutation.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Yes, I would say unlikely ever to happen, not impossible. My reason is that when you duplicate the proteins produced you normally get a less fit organism because of the excess proteins causing imbalance in the organism. The proteins required for each function are very precise and even a slight increase in protein production through insertions within a gene can decrease fitness (Huntington's disease). Major duplications of entire chromosomes cause major loss of fitness as in Down's syndrome. So the likelihood of an entire gene being duplicated without damage to an organism is small, that's why i need proof that this was a duplication and not a deletion. Without the proof that the original population was devoid of the duplicates, the whole point is meaningless.Edited by mindspawn, : clarifying my point.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.