Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
66 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (2 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,326 Year: 5,972/14,102 Month: 120/438 Week: 52/112 Day: 7/8 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolution Theory Issue - Great Debate -mindspawn and RAZD only
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 7 of 65 (688666)
01-24-2013 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-23-2013 10:50 AM

Re: The evolution of novel features\functions
Forgive me if this seems a little pedantic and covers stuff you know, but I find ensuring a common basis for understanding and terminology benefits the debate by reducing confusion.

Your turn: I'd like to see your definition for the theory of evolution:

The Theory of Evolution (T0E) is ....

No problem, its good to have the same terms of reference, how about this one:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations

But your one is fine too, we can use any definition you like, and its very possible that you could win this debate merely on which definition of evolution that you use.

I personally think the discussion would then lead too much into semantics, completely missing my real point. I don't dispute many processes of evolution that can lead to macro-evolution , myself being a great believer in variation and natural selection. (lol I am officially an evolutionist according to your definition). What I do see lacking is proof of a process of complexity , whereby organisms with less protein coding genes and less genes with specific functions, can evolve into more genetically complex organisms over time while maintaining or improving fitness. So I am not disputing all aspects of the process of evolution, I'm merely disputing increased genetic complexity involving additional novel coding genes with novel functions that add fitness to the population of an organism. Where's the evidence?

Without evidence of this process, evolution as an explanation for the existence of many complex life forms that contain many novel functional coding genes is just an hypothesis. Sure evolution can explain some macro-evolutionary changes , but not the existence of complex life-forms which is the essence of the creation/evolution debate.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 10:50 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2013 6:12 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 9 of 65 (688751)
01-25-2013 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
01-24-2013 6:12 PM

Re: The evolution of novel features\functions
Except that the process of evolution can be observed in one generation.

One need only look at kittens or pups newly born and note that they are not clones of either parent, that the coloration patterns are different, for example, and that there are measurable differences in size and shape and behavior among them.

I agree, no dispute there. Variation is already visible each generation.

It's the other way around -- heritable changes result in the process of evolution occurring: no change in hereditary traits means no evolution. This backwards thinking is part of what I was getting at originally.

The process of evolution is an observed fact: it has occurred many times, and occurs regularly in all living species.

I agree here, no dispute, so lets stick to your definition of evolution.

But what I asked for was your definition of the theory of evolution, not the process. They are not the same thing, just as Gravity and the Theory of Gravity are not the same thing .

For instance I would define the theory as:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Well I'm particularly happy to stick to this particular definition of the theory of evolution. if you stick to this definition, then my original dispute stands. I believe there is insufficient support that processes of evolution can explain the current diversity of life. Based specifically on novel genes, I do believe novel features, and novel functions can be explained by evolutionary processes, but not the increasing number of new novel functional coding genes that are apparently "evolved". Evolutionary processes do not explain the full DNA as observed in species.

where I would then define

The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
Without divergent speciation we would all be one species, divergent speciation is what introduces diversity into the mix of life. This is similar to your point #7 listed in Message 1 ("Without it we would just have bacteria on earth, mutating and evolving into alternative forms but never gaining in complexity").

No problem with this. I agree on divergent speciation. The observed processes of divergent speciation are sufficient to explain some diversity and some macro-evolution, yet insufficient to explain some aspects of DNA observed in most modern species (the so-called increases in the number of functional novel unique coding genes that add fitness to organisms). Thus new species are observed, yet important aspects of the genetic complexity that is the essence of the more complex modern fauna remains unexplained.

evolution (process)
theory (scientific)
hypothesis (scientific)
the theory of evolution
novel feature\function
speciation (divergent)
(I just noticed that I should have also included in Message 1)
... and then see whether or not novel features\functions\traits have evolved.

If you agree with me so far on a, b, c, d and g we can move on to e,f and h:

Would you agree that a novel feature\function\trait would be one that did not exist in a previous generation?

I feel we have sufficient consesus on a-d, g I'm not anticipating a problem with h

Regarding novel features and functions, I don't see why you have included that in your list because I see no dispute there and do not feel it should be part of our terms of reference. I agree that novel features and functions do evolve. I believe there are many ways in which this can happen but possibly the most observed processes are deletions and changes to alelle frequencies. I believe the genetic combinations within each species are endless. You just have to look at the possible alelles in each location within a population (let us say for example about 10) and the number of genes (eg about 20000 in mammals) and the result is that the number of combinations of unique individuals is already practically infinite. Just over the first ten genes the maths is 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10 = 10 000 000 000 combinations of uniqueness in a population with 10 possible alelles per location over the first ten genes. So some within the population could have unique looks, unique features, unique functions merely by an environmental presssure that causes continuous changes to alelle combinations best suited to the new environment.

My only problem with evolution is how does evolution explain novel genes as I have described them, without these particular genes, how would one explain a transition from a bacterial form of abut 1000 coding genes to a mammal of about 20000 coding genes each with a unique fitness enhancing function. By what process do these genes increase so effectively in number. By challenging this , I am challenging your own definition on the theory of evolution (are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it)

Evolutionary processes can explain some speciation, but not the genetic diversity of life as we know it, and so I'm proposing we stick to the discussion about novel genes and avoid discussing novel features/functions , a topic on which we already have consensus.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2013 6:12 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2013 10:32 AM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 11 of 65 (688805)
01-25-2013 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
01-25-2013 10:32 AM

Re: The evolution of novel features\functions
Why don't we set this aside for a moment, then and resolve complexity and fitness before coming back to this?

Complexity is, imho, a red herring. It is an emergent property of evolution, but is sometimes gained and sometimes lost as species evolve over time. Blind cave fish for instance are more adapted to dark caves, and it saves on development resources.

One can't get more simple than just surviving prokaryote single cells with minimal DNA (and first life forms were likely very simple), but there is no theoretical limit to the degree of embellishment that can occur, and it doesn't necessarily track with evolution.

The essence of the debate revolves around the current observation of organisms with DNA less simple than the first life-forms, and less simple than prokaryote single cells. The essence of the debate relates specifically to complexity. I am focussing on just ONE aspect of complexity (novel genes) but the fact that this ONE aspect is observed in every organism above the very simplest, makes evidence for it essential if the theory of evolution is able to stand. Can evolution actually explain all of the relative complexity actually observed in most modern life-forms?

So complexity relates to the evolutionary process of organisms gaining productive novel genes over time, a process essential to evolution as a theory explaining modern life. This is what I wish to debate. If you wish to avoid the word "complexity" and stick to discussing genes, I'm fine with that.

Indeed, and they are all based on various combinations of just the four basic purine and pyrimidine bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine, with no theoretical limit to how long the strands can be (yet logically there is a minimum sequence below which life would fail).

Nothing against this in principle, but just speculating that growth of an organism could be inhibited by the length of the DNA, through slow cell reproduction. (off-topic, I know)

The Fitness of an individual organism is the measure of the relative ability of that organism to survive and reproduce compared to other organisms within its breeding population.
It is the measure of the natural selection forces acting on the organism, where the individual that produces more offspring than others in their breeding population (either in one generation or spread out over many generations) contributes more to the gene pool of that population than the others.


Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2013 10:32 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2013 6:21 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 13 of 65 (688990)
01-27-2013 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
01-26-2013 6:21 PM

Re: The evolution of novel features\functions
And I would say that 75% agreement at this early stage of this thread is a good sign.

Early stage? lol we could be nearly finished by now

Agreed about complexity

Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

And some lost wings (red). And diversified.
And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

God made them all different. If you could prove the "regaining" part you have already won this debate. Can you prove the regained" portion of genes was actually from a population that never had them in any form already? Were they just dormant genes ? Inactivated genes that were already there?
This is the essence of this debate, the ability of nature to create genes with unique functions out of nothing, for you to simply describe this process as fact when this is the essence of the debate, makes me wonder if you are on the same page as me that this is what you need to prove. Your arguments will gain strength if you are able to avoid the assumption of evolution in forming your arguments.

So what you are really interested in is whether or not a novel gene sequence has appeared, and we can easily discuss that without pulling in the question of whether the organism with the novel gene is more "complex" than its ancestor.

Yes that is what I have been asking for from the start. As I said, we can avoid the use of the word "complexity" and just discuss this gene adding process.

Would you agree that a novel gene\feature\function\trait would be one that did not exist in a previous generation?

yes, but remember I am not merely discussing novel genes. These have got be ADDITIONAL. Not a mutated gene. NEW ADDITIONAL NOVEL genes. I have to be very careful with the wording here, because you can even have new non-coding sequences that add to an organisms fitness, and I am not referring to non-coding sequences either. Sure we can observe some complexity increasing, but can entire new functions evolve in a new gene, while retaining the gene of the original function?

The traits and functions are the expression of the genotype in the phenotype of each individual organism. You would not have novel features and functions in the phenotype without novel gene sequences.

This is where I completely disagree. I thought we had this already covered and discussed. You see its possibly for some aspects of macro-evolution to already exist within a genome, merely through new allele frequencies. Let's say fish are slowly introduced into environments where their food source is increasingly above the water instead of in the water. The population will gradually change to reflect this, but in many many areas of the genome. Fin shape and size, speed, muscles that assist jumping etc etc . Every feature that assists the survival of that species in that restricted environment will be enhanced until new allele frequencies are obtained for the new environment once the environment is stabilized. The result: jumping fish, a new function. No need for for mutations.

Thus I believe new functions can be created outside of novel gene sequences, my dispute with the theory of evolution remains focused on those new functions that are specifically related to new additional coding genes, and not new functions that are attained through unique combinations of existing alleles, and some point mutations or deletions or other processes.

With this in mind I wish to introduce an acronym , but for the record I am not 100% sure its the perfect acronym, but at least something to use to save me typing the entire description of what I am looking for every post.

G = Gene
A = Additional (ie not a changed gene, but more genes than that organism had)
I = Instrumental - has a function
N = novel (Unique)
S = selected - gains fitness

I am therefore looking for evidence of coding GAINS in organisms, one process essential to the theory of evolution. I believe new functions/features can exist outside of mutations and/or coding GAINS.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : Removing redundancy regarding complexity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2013 6:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 12:34 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 12:46 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 1:33 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 17 of 65 (689078)
01-28-2013 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
01-27-2013 12:46 PM

Re: the god hypothesis place in science
God-did-it is not science, nor is it refutation of science, it justs exhibits a failure to consider how it occurred. This is not debate it is failure to debate.

I'm a Deist: god made the natural laws that caused what you see, and out interest is not in whether he did it, but how -- what were the mechanisms?

The only reason I brought up the "God-did-it" is to highlight that whenever you make a claim about evolution being a fact, it must be compared to the God "hypothesis" to see if the evolutionary process is more likely. To make sweeping statements that a certain gene evolved before we have even discussed whether genes can evolve is not showing respect to the topic.

So I move to strike the god hypothesis from this debate, and stick to science and natural explanations:

Organisms exist, DNA exists. They mutate. That is observed.

The "God-hypothesis" says they were created that way, an intelligent designer created all the intricacy in each gene and nature cannot spontaneously create that intricacy found in genes.

Evolutionary theory states that all modern life is a result of evolutionary processes, and due to the fact that most organisms show more coding genes than the basic organisms, evolutionary theory involves coding GAINS.

When looking at any genome sequencing, it is therefore essential to show that the evolutionary process is more observable than the pre-existence of the intricacy of that gene, if the theory of evolution is to be a more acceptable explanation for the existence of the gene. So I don't feel that we have to discuss the God-hypothesis, all I request is that every time you bring up evidence you are mentally comparing it to the other possibility that God created that gene. This will sharpen up your logic, because I will always look at all evidence with the "created that way" alternative in mind. And I will show you the alternative creationist possibilities if necessary to reveal evolutionist circular reasoning.

and that brings me to this...........

Does not explain why the genetic patterns fit the nested hierarchy shown. If god/s made them different how come he made them so similar that they fit the nested hierarchy shown? Is s/he faking evidence? There is no cause to create the nested hierarchy unless the method\mechanism used to created used the natural process of evolution and selection.


Nested hierarchy is an assumption based on the pre-acceptance of evolutionary theory, when the entire concept of groups of similar organisms could simply be explained by the fact that God designed organisms in groups. ie there is an overlap of genetic sequences of certain organisms due to being designed so similar. Intelligent designers (think cars) always use this process, never having to "re-invent the wheel"., but duplicating their basic designs and adjusting other features to produce their full range.

Additionally, there are huge numbers of extinct species, to find some sort of phylogenetic tree by ordering them into artificial sequences of fossils is just that, artificial.

So to conclude, any genetic evidence brought forward regarding genes evolving will be compared to the "always was there" hypothesis so we can look at the evidence in an unbiased fashion, which is the essence of the evolution/creation debate. Whether mentioned or unmentioned, the comparison has to be there the whole time.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 12:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 7:11 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 18 of 65 (689084)
01-28-2013 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-27-2013 1:33 PM

Re: Novelty and Evolution
Nothing is proven in science, not even that the earth orbits the sun, this is just the best explanation for the observations we have.

I'm happy with "best explanation for the observations we have".

How is a dormant gene activated?
How is a gene deactivated?
How is an inactivated gene reactivated?

Answer: by mutation/s.

How do they become predominant in the population?

Answer: by selection, by improved fitness within the ecology.

No problem. I thought you were using this as an example of coding GAINS, but I now see you are not. I have no problem with these processes.

Please define macro-evolution so we can agree on this term. I know how science uses the term, I want to see your understanding of what the term means.

What is it, how does it occur, how do you know when it has occurred?

If you wouldn't mind doing the homework yourself, and we will use your definition from now on.

But curiously, your example does not show a new function, but enhancement of an existing function, enhancement by standard evolutionary processes, including mutation and selection.

You are correct here, I was just describing the process and yet believe this process can lead to macro-evolutionary changes when continued for long enough. And can include some mutations too.

So when you talk about changing allele frequencies you are talking about the process of evolution, or micro-evolution, yes?

I mean macro-evolution as well, I see no limitations on the genetic diversity that can be produced by re-combining alleles into unique combinations. Like I already said, there are ten billion unique individuals from just the variety of ten alleles in the first ten genes. The figures gets ridiculous over 22000 genes, or if you extend the alleles beyond ten per location you then multiply the effect exponentially. The potential variety is too huge to restrict it to micro-evolution given enough evolutionary pressures. But you can check in with me on this after you have given me your definition of macro-evolution.

Not sure why you differentiate additional from changed - either constitutes a mutation to the genome.

I agree that rarely mutations can add fitness. But I have never observed them add a gene at the same time. It is this gene adding process that is essential to explain most modern life-forms.

The process here would be gene duplication, (mutation of the genotype) then modification of one of the duplicates (mutation of the genotype) to produce a new feature\function\trait in the phenotype.

You would not know that this occurred until you see it expressed in the phenotype.

Those genotypes can be re-interpreted according to creationist theory and normally the creationist view is more statistically viable. For example often when two similar genes are observed in a population, and yet some members of a population do not have one of those two genes, the evolutionist assumption is a duplication and mutation, and yet an inactivation or deletion is a pretty common mutational process. Therefore its not necessarily more likely that the number of genes has increased, the more likely process is that the number of genes has decreased. It is these observations that have to be interpreted correctly before evolutionary conclusions can be reached.

Regarding phenotypes, as I keep saying we cannot assume macro-evolution comes from coding GAINS, it can come from deletions, and non-mutative processes in theory too.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 1:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 8:55 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 21 of 65 (689253)
01-29-2013 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
01-28-2013 7:11 PM

Re: the god hypothesis place in science
Actually it doesn't -- the hypothesis needs to become a scientific theory before it can challenge other scientific theories.

What predictions does the god/s hypothesis make that differentiates it from evolution?

Then let us see if it pans out in the evidence.

The "hypothesis" that god made it look that way -- for every bit of evidence known and found -- does not explain anything - it's a cop-out

I don't go by the "God made it look that way" theory. I agree that's silly.

I am saying that all genomes look created. They exist, they have many genes, each gene is highly intricate in structure. The science behind the evolution of those genes is hypothesied, but I do not see actual evidence for it. That's enough to put the two theories of where the genes came from on equal footing, unless you can show me evidence for your hypothesis that coding genes can increase in number over time. (adding fitness)

If there is no way to distinguish creation\design from natural evolution then all you are doing is stating that creation\design looks just like evolution. You are making no prediction\test of the hypothesis but using the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy to say "me too"

It does not look evolved at all. When you look at a genetic sequence it looks like it is created with some mutations afterwards. It does not look like each of those genes has evolved naturally unless you can show evidence otherwise. All the other processes we agree on (point mutations, disabling of a gene, subsequent enabling of a gene, deletions, duplications). Gene's look too intricate to evolve naturally, and when duplicating normally cause abortions or loss of fitness. This is normally due to the fact that excess proteins are produced, beyond what the organism requires.

Duplications of oncogenes are a common cause of many types of cancer

Chromosome 16q, partial duplication: A rare chromosomal disorder involving an extra copy of genetic material from the long arm of chromosome 16. The type and severity of symptoms are determined by the amount and location of the duplicated genetic material. Severe cases often result in spontaneous abortion or infant death.

Which, curiously, is not claimed by evolution. Nothing in evolution happens "all at once" but develops over generations

The word "spontaneously" does not mean "all at once".
1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
3. Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior.
4. Growing without cultivation or human labor.

I am saying that nature cannot naturally create the intricacy found in genes.

So your god/s could not decide whether to have wings or no wings, and when it came to Lapaphus parakensis, they kept changing their minds? Doesn't sound like intelligent design to me

I thought I already agreed on the processes involved there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you claim that's a process of disabling, and subsequent enabling? I agree with many evolutionary processes, but not the evolving of coding GAINS over time.

Of course there would be nested hierarchies in that instance.

Meaningless word salad to me. Try using terminology in evolutionary science. This just looks like pretentious pretend pseudo-intellectualism, attempting to say something meaningful.


I said:
... the pre-existence of the intricacy of that gene, ...

(it was already intricate???)

My daughter could understand that with ease. Please don't get unnecessarily nasty........ especially when unjustified.

And how do you test the "always was there" hypothesis against evolutionary theory mechanisms and processes?

If no known natural process can create coding GAINS, the concept that those coding genes were already there becomes more and more acceptable.

Does a shorter sequence mean that some "always was there" genetic sequence has been lost? Seems wasteful for intelligent designing.

Longer sequences, and shorter sequences, were all designed that way. nothing wasteful. There have been some subsequent mutations (eg some gene disabling, point mutations, deletions, enabling, damaging/neutral duplications etc etc)

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 7:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2013 2:09 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 22 of 65 (689256)
01-29-2013 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
01-28-2013 8:55 PM

Re: Nested Hierarchies and Macroevolution
The earliest life form we know from the fossil record is a blue-green algae, a prokaryote similar to the blue-green algae today. We do not know (yet) about any earlier life forms. The DNA of those algae may have been similar to what we see today or it may have been simpler ... or it may have been more convoluted with a lot of dead weight left over from whatever process first developed for life on earth. We don't know. We do know that some fairly simple organisms have extremely long DNA. The genetic sequences necessary for life may have been relatively simple, but there also may not have been any mechanism to reduce baggage.

We also know that for the first billion years prokaryotic life was what left evidence that we can find, and that eukaryotic life seems to have developed by combining two or more forms into a new and novel form of life before developing into multicellular life forms.

Ok well I have to admit that I never thought of this argument, that DNA could have started out long. Yes maybe the fact that we cannot observe the unlikely event of nature adding on just one gene, is because nature did all 22000 genes at once............ (I want to burst out laughing at this concept)

A) If you do assume a long DNA, then your view is similar to mine. We started with highly involved DNA. Then you have a huge problem with credibility because how does nature do this?

B) If you do not assume a long DNA then we are back to the same problem, where did the additional genes come from?

Both ways the theory of evolution has a big problem to solve.

Evolutionary theory involves evolution of organisms, from generation to generation, occasionally involving the development of novel genes\features\functions\traits.

It usually takes many many pages in discussions with evolutionists for them to realise to get from a simple 1000 gene organism to a 22000 gene organism, involves the evolving of genes. I will ask my three year old nephew about this, how does the basket with one apple become the basket with 22 apples? You add in 21 apples. But how? Without this process , life as we know it would not exist under evolutionary processes (the range of existing modern organisms). Or maybe 22000 gene organisms just appeared? (sounds a bit like creation to me)

I agree on the evolving of traits, and features, and functions. Let's discuss genes.

Macroevolution is the natural history\record of the evolution of organisms via phyletic speciation (microevolution), and divergent evolution, over many generations

No problem with this. I feel this definition would include extreme changes through changes to allele frequencies (continued micro-evolution of one population under continued evolutionary pressures until the two populations are so different or so separated they no longer breed)

If you accept this then we can move forward on novel genes\features\functions\traits.

Have you considered that it is possible to discuss novel genes directly, without agreeing on everything else first. If we do not agree on these other topics, which is highly likely, then we may never get there. All I'm asking is that you tell me the theoretical process behind the evolving of genes, and some evidence to support this theory on gene evolving. (duplication then mutation?)

As with complexity, I suggest that the god hypothesis and the hidden gene hypothesis be dropped from the debate unless you can provide a scientific basis for including them -- a way to test them that differentiates them from evolutionary theory:

I don't see this as possible, if you present evidence for evolution, and at that time I point out that the creationist view explains the evidence better, then at that time I will be providing evidence for creationism as a better explanation for what is observed. This is after all a creation/evolution debate. I reserve the right to point out the creationist explanation as a more viable one throughout this debate.

As for the "hidden gene hypothesis" I don't know anything about that, explain more?

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 8:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2013 5:57 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 25 of 65 (689376)
01-30-2013 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
01-29-2013 2:09 PM

Re: pseudoscience vs science
Yes, but the likelihood that we would be talking past each other would be extremely high. By going through these definitions and agreeing on their usage and meaning then it means we have a discussion with common terminology.

Not nearly as important as you are claiming. the word "complex" would naturally come up many times in a conversation like this, and to restrict its usage is extremely pedantic and not conducive to good communication. I therefore wish to continue the usage of this word in this thread and you can strike it off the list of consensus.

Duplications of gene sequences have been observed, so it is not a problem for evolution. So have random insertions and deletions, sequence rearrangements and flipping of sections of genetic code. What's to explain?

I already dealt with duplications. If they code for proteins they are damaging or neutral. This is what is observed. I posted evidence for some observed duplications that do damage. So it definitely is a problem for evolution, unless you can show how duplicated coding genes improve fitness?


Thus DNA is boringly repetitious rather than intricate (or complex ...).

The process of evolution adequately explains the boring repetition of sequences.

I agree that there are 4 possibilities, and agree that it is repetitive. However it is highly complex.
Just like binary bits of a computer are long sequences of boring repetition, place them in a certain order (computer software) and they become highly effective codes containing processing information. This is a good analogy with DNA which has double the information per position than the binary code of computers and four times the options over two positions. This "boring repetition" encodes highly detailed production of proteins, and slight changes (point mutations) can have devastating effects on the organism. The very complexity of the genetic code speaks huge volumes in favor of creation over evolution, and so I cannot agree with your comments above.

And here we see the typical lay person \ creationist confusion with macro-evolution.

What do you mean by "extreme changes"? The evolution of a novel feature\function\trait?

Well your defintion of macro-evolution didi not actually require novel features/functions/traits. You keep saying I am confused, yet you agree that changes to allele frequencies can cause micro-evolution. You also seem to agree that continuous micro-evolution can result in macro-evolution according to your definition of macro-evolution. So I'm failing to see where I am confused? Could you explain this better? Would you like to use a new definition of macro-evolution that includes novel features/traits?

Macroevolution is the natural history\record of the evolution of organisms via phyletic speciation (microevolution), and divergent evolution, over many generations

Changes to allele frequencies and some minor mutations can cause phyletic speciation and divergent evolution without the need for new coding GAINS. To always assume coding GAINS through the observation of new traits is not being true to the variety of evolutionary processes claimed by evolution.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2013 2:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2013 6:08 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 26 of 65 (689379)
01-30-2013 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
01-29-2013 5:57 PM

Re: Nested Hierarchies and Macroevolution
Early reproducing molecules could have used different nucleotides altogether. Certainly RNA shows some variation by using uracil instead of thymine, and current thinking is that life evolved from RNA pre-biotic systems (RNA world). There could have been other players in the early life mix.

Until evolution processes took over control of molecular reproduction via selection there was likely no mechanism to eliminate unnecessary material. But the issue is that we do not know what the first life forms on earth were like, whether it was long or short, circular or stranded.

Aaah ok. Do you think that its possible that the very first life-form had many thousands of distinct coding genes? When you answer, please consider that genes are so perfect as they are , that even just a point mutation can sometimes cause death. So the possibility of an organism with many separate coding genes just appearing from nature and yet that organism still surviving is actually ridiculously improbable, and would be a creation "miracle" all on its own?

Curiously, I don't need to assume either. Evolution still answers the issue of how life changes over time. All I need to do is look at the evidence that is available and see that evolutionary processes explain the evidence.

You keep saying this stuff, yet refuse to post your evidence. That is not debating in good faith, when you require me to post evidence.

Are you ready to drop the god hypothesis, the hidden gene hypothesis and any other appeal to belief over evidence?

That's ironic that you refuse to discuss the topic of the thread , evidence for the theory of evolution, until I give my evidence (ironic? hypocritical?)

Nevertheless I will drop discussing this for the sake of getting on with this discussion.

Are you ready to drop "intricacy" as just as problematic as "complexity" was (and any other verbal attempts to use different terms to mean the same basic thing)?

No. The word "complexity" is highly relevant to this discussion and the need to use it may arise repeatedly. I see it as highly pedantic to demand that I do not use a specific word before you discuss the core issues. For the sake of discussion I have been willing to compromise, hoping you can do the same.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2013 5:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2013 8:37 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 29 of 65 (689488)
01-31-2013 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
01-30-2013 6:08 PM

Re: Backing up the bus
Changes to allele frequencies and some minor mutations can cause phyletic speciation and divergent evolution without the need for new coding blahblah. To always assume coding blahblah through the observation of new traits is not being true to the variety of evolutionary processes claimed by evolution.

I took a lot of time to create an acronym, instead of politely asking me not to use that acronym, this is your response, to call my acronym blahblah? Nice one RAZD!

The word "complexity" and any stand-in ("intricacy" etc) is meaningless to me in this debate so far, because I cannot measure it. Thus whenever you use it you are thinking you are meaning something but it is not being communicated -- you are talking past me.

Curiously, the words I've defined can be measured, quantified and compared.

I understand your sentiments, for the sake of argument, let us define complexity as additional coding genes. If one organism has one more coding gene than another with an otherwise identical chromosomal organization, this is added complexity.

And I need to have your consensus that most organisms have increased in coding genes from the original organism. Do you think its possible that the original organism started with as many coding genes as a human? YES or NO

Yes, you have cherry picked some examples. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial depending on how they affect the development, survival and reproduction of the organism.

Only looking ones that are deleterious is using confirmation bias to support your arguments. We can cover this in greater detail later.

I agree with the confirmation bias and the cherry picking, but what I did was give SOME support for my position. I am not claiming a concluded principle, neither do I claim that the lack of support for your position is a concluded principle. It merely weakens the theory of evolution's ability to explain all life-forms to the status of an hypothesis, if you have no evidence for organisms gaining novel coding genes that increase fitness.

This shows how little difference is needed to have breeding isolation, and this is all that is necessary to make nested hierarchies.

After many speciation events and continued divergent evolution of the daughter populations over many generations features and traits can develop that are distinctly different, but that is due to many generations of phyletic evolution in each hereditary lineage, not to any new process or mechanism.

When you trace a novel feature\trait backwards to see how it developed all that is observed is normal evolution from generation to generation, and it is only when you look at features\traits from say 10 or more generations apart that you begin to see differences enough to categorize as novel.

True, completely agree with this. New species and new traits can develop slowly , generation to generation, without the requirement of an additional new novel coding gene, or a definite duplication mutation which is what I have been saying. This is macro-evolution at work through minor changes, generation to generation.

Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that selection mechanisms only operate on the existing mixture of alleles\traits\features within the breeding populations and does not cause novel genes\features\functions\traits?

I agree that selection mechanisms only operate on the existing mixture,
I disagree that selection mechanisms do not cause novel traits; through selection the allele frequency that enhances that feature/trait can be emphasized in the population of the very next generation. Continuous selection can cause a new feature/trait/function to dominate in a population (without the need for novel genes).

Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that any change to the genetic sequences is a mutation?

The phrase "genetic sequence" seems ambiguous to me, so I can't answer that for sure. If the sequence changes, that does seem like a mutation, but if allele frequencies change, that is not a mutation. Thus the genetic make-up of the population can change over time through non-mutational processes.

Does not any mutation create a genetic sequence that was not in the parent population?

A point mutation does not always change the sequences within a gene.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : removing the acronym GAINS in favor of typing out a long sentence.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2013 6:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2013 7:14 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 31 of 65 (689565)
02-01-2013 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-31-2013 7:14 PM

Re: mutation vs selection
As I don't know what the original organism started with, I can't really say. What I can say is that the process of evolution has resulted in occasional gain in the number of genes (coding or otherwise) and occasional loss in the number of genes (coding or otherwise), and that both cases could result in novel traits\functions\features in the phenotypes within a breeding population.

I will take this as a badly communicated "YES" to my question. You truly seem to believe its possible rather than impossible that the very first organism had as many coding genes as some modern organisms like humans. I don't want to mock, but that is truly ridiculous. Utter nonsense. If your answer is "NO" then just say it. I have never heard of such an utter copout to the matter of complexity.

Understood, I spend a lot of time on my replies, and presenting information, and a lot of it seem to be ignored (or hopefully accepted without comment ). When you ignore parts of my posts, that is me talking past you - it all goes blahdeblahblahblah to you.

However, making up an acronym before you have established a need for it can interfere with communication and I would be prefer the longer sentence (less potential for confusion). The blahblah actually referred more to the definition of the acronym, btw, using terms that we haven't really addressed at this point. Your acronym seemed to me to be setting up a strawman that doesn't accurately portray how evolution necessarily works when novel features are developed.

If I ignore anything its because its repeats of detail that I thought we have already discussed and concluded and agreed, or possibly introducing new minor side issues when we already have too many side issues to deal with.

As far as introducing a strawman, I see that part of this discussion is to show you that evolution requires this process of gaining new novel coding genes. So it appears to be a strawman but the process is essential to evolution. The alternative , that the first lifeform contained as many novel coding genes as the most extensive existing today is ridiculously laughable. I have already pointed out why, because each gene contains thousands of base pairs and these are ordered in such a perfect sequence, that nearly every time the sequence breaks even slightly the organism loses fitness. Thus the thought that there could have been many coding sequences simultaneously appearing in the first organism is hilarious, and so a novel coding gene gaining process is inevitable to evolution.

Okay, so then the walkingsticks presumably lost complexity when they lost wings and gained complexity when they gained wings?

Yes, this type of complexity gain I agree with, the complexity gain that I feel we are missing evidence for is when an additional NOVEL coding gene is gained in an organism. Regaining lost complexity is observable, gaining new complexity I feel needs more evidence.

Where do the female wingless male winged walkingsticks fit into this paradigm - half complexity between winged and wingless?

Are all winged species equally complex?
Are all non-winged species equally complex?

I agree with you that complexity is difficult to measure in most circumstances, a grey area. Where it is clear that there has been gained complexity, is when there is a new, additional novel coding gene in an organism. This added complexity is essential to evolution even if appearing like a strawman argument, it is not actually one. As explained above, the alternative is laughable that the first organism had as many of these genes as modern ones.

To compare homo sapiens to amoeba dubia is missing the point that each of them evolved according to evolutionary theory. They therefore have more novel coding genes than they had before. Each has experienced its own growth in complexity if evolution is true, the alternative that they each started out with the same number of genes in the beginning is laughable so this is no strawman argument I am introducing, the growth un the number of genes is an essential process.

(in the beginning the earth was formless and empty, and nature created various life-forms spontaneously full of novel protein coding genes in perfect sequences - sounds like creation to me)

In your opinion. We know that mutations of all types can be either deleterious, neutral or beneficial, so citing only deleterious instances does not weaken the knowledge that mutations can be either deleterious, neutral or beneficial. Citing instances of black swans in one location does not weaken the position that white swans are also known in other locations.

Well you are very welcome to cite your examples or evidence that duplications can create novel coding genes that are beneficial. That is all I ask for. With one view having evidence, and the other view without evidence, the argument definitely favors the view with some evidence.

Let's not equivocate between gene and genetic sequence.

Assume a genetic sequence (whether it is a whole gene or not, or several genes is not important yet),

say ... AAGTCCGTAAGGG ... (where the ... indicate that the sequence continues to each side of the section in question),

Can you add or delete a molecule at any point in this sequence without changing the sequence?

No, but you can change a molecule, and therefore have a mutation with no change in sequence.

Indeed, whether it is a point mutation or a complete gene duplication, any change to the overall genetic sequence is a mutation, and one that did not exist in the genome before the mutation, yes?

This is true.

Not quite clear here. Changing the frequency of alleles does not change the genetic make-up of the breeding population, loss of alleles through selection or drift changes the genetic make-up of the breeding population, but this does not add new genes\features\functions\traits.

Selection, drift, etc do not develop new genes\features\functions\traits - that only occurs through mutations

You should be clear here, because I have explained it. When you have many many trillions of possible allele combinations, the amount of new traits already contained in the genetic code is huge. Unlimited. When you change a set of alleles into a new set of combinations never seen on earth before, its impossible to say there will never be a new trait expressed within that unique combination of alleles. I find your insistence on traits being caused only by mutations illogical. You could fill the planet earth shoulder to shoulder with unique humans, over a trillion earths in this universe, over a trillion universes, and not even get close to the number of different allele combinations possible in humans. I don't say that figure lightly, it really is true. There is no logic behind your insistence that not one of those unique humans would have a new trait. At ten alleles per position, and 20000 gene locations, we have 10^20000 unique allele combinations.
ie 20 000 zeros . A trillion x trillion x trillion doesn't even cover the first 100 zeros. Given enough environmental pressures humans could develop down an evolutionary path that causes humans to be vastly different to today, without the need for any mutation.

For example, the trait for ability to handle hotter temperatures is expressed in the allele frequncies in flies. There is a regular relationship between certain alleles and latitude:

But that novel trait was not developed by selection, rather selection operated on its existence in the population to make it dominant. What made it novel was the genetic mutation/s that resulted in the selectable trait.

Not necessarily. By interbreeding those with the trait, you can emphasize the trait beyond anything seen in the original population. This is a well known breeding technique and is not associated with mutations. Its possible that nature can do the same. Lets say a leopard population finds itself isolated in desert conditions with few trees due to increased aridity in a certain region. Only the fastest survive. The fastest breed with the fastest in the next generation, the others being too weak to be good breeding partners. You can end up with a new breed of smaller desert leopards (like cheetahs) that can run faster than any individual in the original population. The trait for speed has been emphasized. There are no theoretical limits to these kinds of processes, unless you would like to introduce a limiting factor?

The new allele combinations would possibly express the traits for speed and for lung capacity and for the ability to drop temperature of the overheated animal, and it would take many generations for the best possible combinations of these alleles to express themselves and settle into a new allele frequency within the new population.

So now we add "coding gene" to our list of terms -- can we drop "intricacy" if you want to use complexity?

Yes we can drop intricacy, why not keep micro-evolution and macro-evolution, I thought we agreed on your definitions, I'm not sure why you are dropping them when we have agreement? Unless you anticipate no need for those terms in our discussion which is fine by me. Up to you.

What is a "coding gene" versus a "non-coding gene" and how do we tell them apart?

What I have in this regard is:


Thats correct, more technically, the gene starts at the start codon.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2013 7:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2013 11:01 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 33 of 65 (689679)
02-02-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
02-01-2013 11:01 PM

Re: mutation vs selection and novelty
Then you are intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying.

When it is impossible to know what the first organism was like, then all you have are guesses -- you do NOT have yes or no answers with any validity.

Nor is it necessary to fixate on the possible first life to discuss novel traits/features/functions and the genetic basis for them: we can see that novel traits evolve.

What you have asserted here is the argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Not an evidence based conclusion.

I'm not intentionally misunderstanding what you are saying. I asked you to admit its impossible for nature to create the first organism with 20000 coding genes. By your inability to admit that it is impossible you are implying that it is actually possible. You emphasize this view by repeating that we do not know what the first organism is like. without actually saying it, you have left open the possibility that its possible. This is incredulous.

You refer to an argument from incredulity. Well if you have no evidence that any organism can be created from nothing, even a simple organism, its not a valid hypothesis. How would one test to see if its possible for the first life-form to have many many more coding genes than observed in a prokaryote fossil?

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories

Those prokaryote fossils look like today's prokaryotes, your proposed hypothesis that they could have had a lot more coding genes is an absolutely ridiculous speculation, and you are using this proposal to avoid facing the fact that many evolutionists WILL admit:
Most of today's life-forms have more coding genes than the oldest observed fossil life-forms most likely had, and therefore a process that involves gains in novel coding genes has to be part of evolutionary theory for it to stand. This is no strawman argument, it is essential to evolution.

If you refuse to admit this , then we have nothing further to discuss, this thread is about the lack of evolutionary processes to explain additional novel coding genes.

More argument from incredulity. They don't all have to be in a single organism, there could have been many variations that developed life. RNA life is one theory in this regard, and may be the only remnant left from pre-DNA life forms. There could well have been others.

Are you a creationist? If your argument against increased complexity is that abiogenesis created many complex organisms and there has been losses of complexity since, this is very close to creationism. You then don't have to justify increased complexity, because you are also believer in miracles. The spontaneous creation of complex life containing many thousands of novel coding genes is in the realm of miracles and fantasy, welcome to the supernatural club!

If what you said was true then new speed records should be set every year. This is not the case. The speed is limited by the fitness of the existing alleles being selected, and without new mutations to enable increased speed the limit for those existing alleles is reached fairly quickly when selection is strong -- as in breeding situations.

I agree that what you are saying is generally observed, but there could be a few alleles in a separate population that could again accelerate a trait once bred in. I also agree with the bell curve, the reality is a slowdown in improvements over time as the new allele frequencies are settling. Regardless, allele combinations are infinite and can affect traits. You seem to feel that the number of genes per trait (eg eyes) are limited, but there are some genes that are more relevant to chemical balances, size of organs, hormones, digestion of specific foods that can help that organ. So the number of varied genomic regions affecting a trait could be numerous, not isolated to the obvious region in the genome.

I believe an organism like a Tasmanian wolf can be evolved from a kangaroo without the need for mutation. Its just a few adjustments to teeth, digestion, limbs, all the variety contained within existing alleles, and possible under strong environmental pressure for a predator. Who is right and wrong on this particular issue can only be decided when there is more genome sequencing of animals, if completely differing species are found to have nearly matching genomes, I will be right. Until then we are both speculating without evidence.

So if I change a G to an A, say,

-- it is the exact same sequence?

Depends on how you define "sequence", maybe, maybe not, let's go with your definition, is this really relevant?

Note that I am keeping "complexity" in the "maybe" state, as I don't think it really provides a measure of what you seem to be meaning when you use the term, and I don't see that your requirement for coding gene duplication is required for new traits/functions/features to evolve. I'd rather use "increase in coding genes" than "complexity" as there is less chance of confusion on the part of readers in what you mean.

I have been pretty clear in my agreement on most evolutionary processes. I have absolutely no idea why you are saying that I have a "requirement for coding gene duplication is required for new traits/functions/features to evolve". I have been repeatedly and clearly saying the opposite, and this is central to my argument.

For the record I will explain it again:
A) I do not believe coding gene duplication is required for new traits/functions/features to evolve. They evolve through many other observable processes, devolving, deletions, changed allele frequencies, gene disabling.
B) I believe gains in novel coding genes are absolutely essential to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the observation of most modern organisms that have many novel coding genes. I believe these gains need some evidence. (The alternative that organisms started out with many novel coding genes is so akin to creationism, we would be on the same side: the spontaneous and miraculous appearance of organisms with many novel coding genes)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2013 11:01 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2013 5:00 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 35 of 65 (689724)
02-04-2013 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
02-03-2013 5:00 PM

Re: mutation vs selection and the causes of novelty
And I find your fascination with first life bewildering in the extreme.

We don't know. It doesn't get simpler than that.

The first life we have any record of is the blue-green algae at some 3.5 billion years ago, iirc, and even then we cannot tell how similar it is to blue-green algae today, other than leaving mats of strands of cells and making stromatolites. We do not know if it has coding genes that life today does not have, and we do not know if it has the same coding genes as modern blue-green algae.


Ok we are both repeating ourselves here , its due to a complete stalemate.

The fact that you are a deist and also like me believe its possible that DNA started out with long strands of many thousands of novel coding genes, means we are actually in near complete agreement. I believe in stasis or reduced novel coding genes over time, you believe in reduced or increased novel coding genes over time, the increases not being central to your view.

Frankly I don't see you as a true evolutionist, if evolutionists are now admitting that the full genome size could have been there from the start, this is the creationist view too. From an empirical view, neither of us was there to see how the DNA strand came into being, I believe it was created supernaturally, you through abiogenesis?

I personally think any informed neutral party would be more aware than you of the complexity involved in sequencing a set of codons in such an order as to not damage an organism, and to do this repeatedly over 3 billion or more base pairs is impossible without an intelligent designer or a believable process. The slow process of evolution from simplicity to complexity is far more believable than your proposed possible sudden complexity view of evolution.

I believe observers would be extremely amused to see evolutionist's convergence with creationists on this sudden appearance of complexity, and it reminds me of the creationist's catastrophic view on the fossil record, and how mainstream science has adapted from uniformitarianism to include some catastrophism as predicted by creationism.

Can you falsify the speculation that early life had coding genes that are no longer in the population?

I don't need to , its an untestable and ridiculous concept that early life had complex genomes, and this is not even a valid hypothesis that should enter into the arena of respected scientific debate. Why debate ridiculous concepts that are untestable? That is why only accepted hypotheses and theories are subjected to falsification, they have to first reach that status of being a hypothesis.

Mutation occurs in the genotype (upper left box), selection occurs on the phenotype (lower right box).

Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that:

Any change in the genetic sequence is a mutation, every change in the genetic sequence is a mutation, and when the total sequence in an offspring is not the sequence in a parent ... it is due to mutation/s.

This may be true for asexual organisms but not true for sexual organisms. The offspring in sexual organisms are a combination of the alleles in both parents. Thus the sequences in the offspring differ to each parent every time even if there are no mutations involved. The offspring shows different combinations of genes to the parent.

If you want agreement that novel gene sequences, and the expression of them in the novel traits\functions\features that result, are necessary to explain the diversity of life as we know it then there is absolutely no argument there at all.

Ok this is significant, I have to rush off, will deal with this in my next post.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2013 5:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2013 5:34 PM mindspawn has responded

Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 36 of 65 (689726)
02-04-2013 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
02-03-2013 5:00 PM

Re: mutation vs selection and the causes of novelty
Wrong. There are a finite number of alleles for any one trait in an existing population. Without mutations adding new alleles there is necessarily a finite number of combinations. Even if every individual in a breeding population had different alleles from the others there is a limit to the number of alleles due to there being a fixed number of individuals in that population.

What we see is a process of mutation adding alleles and selection reducing alleles, and that the number of alleles for any trait is fairly limited.

If only 20 genes of 20000 genes in an organism affect a trait, and each gene average ten alleles, the number of allele combinations is 100 000 000 000 000 000 000. Fairly limited?? No

No, you will still be wrong, because you apparently don't understand the difference between mutation and selection. Rearranging genetic sequences is mutation, adjustments to "teeth, digestion, limbs, (etc)" would be mutation. You would need many mutations to the genetic sequences to get a Tasmanian Devil from a Kangaroo ... in fact you would need mutations to get from one species of Kangaroo to another species of Kangaroo.

New combinations of alleles for different traits in offspring (ie muscles from one parent and hair color from the other parent) is due to the mutations that occur during the sexual reproduction processes, not selection.

Let's agree to disagree unless you have proof rather than opinion based on observations of selective breeding of horses for speed. I believe in the next few years one of us will be proved wrong. Let's watch genome sequencing of marsupials in Australia. I don't mind being wrong here, but I'm sure I'm right, just by the sheer number of combinations possible.

No you haven't been clear, obviously, if I have it wrong. This is why we need consistent terminology and understanding.

Since when is lack of comprehension "obviously" the writer's fault? It could be the reader, or the writer, or both.

If you want agreement that novel gene sequences, and the expression of them in the novel traits\functions\features that result, are necessary to explain the diversity of life as we know it then there is absolutely no argument there at all.

Good, but I am referring to gains in novel coding genes, not just changes. (Increased no. of novel coding genes). Its funny that the peanut gallery has picked up on this, agrees that increased numbers of novel coding genes are essential to evolution, and are already posting evidence for the evolutionist position on this. I may never get there in this thread, being bogged down into a mire of semantic distractions (feel the frustration!) and copouts based on unlikely scenarios about evolution being unrelated to increased complexity. No hard feelings RAZD, the undercover creationist - lol

When we eventually get there, you have a cool head start of peanut gallery studies that purportedly support the evolutionist position. But just remember if you ever get around to posting your evidence for gene-adding processes, its the theory of evolution that is being challenged. Thus to use circular reasoning of the assumption of evolution to prove evolution, is illogical. When confronted with two populations (human/ape or rare ape/hominid) it would be essential to eliminate the possibility that both populations had the duplicate first, and the one population was subsequently selected for not having the gene. Alternatively it would also be essential to eliminate the possibility that both populations were always like that, to do this unfortunately requires a genetic analysis of the original population which is impossible with the alleged evolutionary time frames. These type of studies can be done within fast breeding laboratory populations where the original population is completely devoid of duplications, and then beneficial coding duplications are subsequently detected. The general principle precluding this type of beneficial duplication event, is my proposed hypothesis that genes already are optimized for protein production, and in natural conditions can never duplicate protein production across an entire gene without damaging fitness. (hence all the observed medical problems related to increased protein production). I believe that unlike other proposals in this thread, this hypothesis is falsifiable yet has a record of supporting evidence.

Edited by mindspawn, : Editing out my repetitiveness, I have been saying the same thing the whole thread!

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2013 5:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2013 5:18 PM mindspawn 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