Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
695 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 692 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,821 Year: 21,857/19,786 Month: 420/1,834 Week: 420/315 Day: 16/82 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 46 of 248 (836239)
07-12-2018 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Taq
07-12-2018 5:18 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Can you show an actual new phenotype from any of your many identified genetic changes? I don't mean comparisons with chimps or other creatures, I mean actual phenotypic change that is actually NEW to the creature and not just a known variation of a known trait, brought about by an actual genetic change.

If the mutation alters the sequence of a gene it could only produce a variation in whatever that gene governs; if the gene is for fur color the mutation will only produce a fur color and nothing else. Do you have any actual reason to dispute this?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 07-12-2018 5:18 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 8:31 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 07-13-2018 4:47 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 47 of 248 (836241)
07-12-2018 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
07-12-2018 8:06 PM


Re: No New Functions?
I was just reading up on orphan genes. Formed from junk DNA I gather.; Vast majority are useless. Tiny proportion are said to produce novel phenotypes. Funny how it's always the most obscure elements that do such things as produce new phenotypes. Why not normal genes?

That article also shows how much habitual speculation about evolutionary history goes on in trying to explain various genetic occurrences. Makes me wonder what you'd all come up with if you didn't allow yourselves all that speculation, just stick to the facts within the genome you are studying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 8:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2018 9:55 PM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 48 of 248 (836244)
07-12-2018 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-12-2018 8:31 PM


Re: No New Functions?
I was just reading up on orphan genes. Formed from junk DNA I gather.; Vast majority are useless. Tiny proportion are said to produce novel phenotypes. Funny how it's always the most obscure elements that do such things as produce new phenotypes. Why not normal genes?

Normal genes form new phenotypes; you have been given numerous examples.

That article also shows how much habitual speculation about evolutionary history goes on in trying to explain various genetic occurrences. Makes me wonder what you'd all come up with if you didn't allow yourselves all that speculation, just stick to the facts within the genome you are studying.

... says the woman who just makes shit up all the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 8:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 10:05 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 49 of 248 (836245)
07-12-2018 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2018 9:55 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Have you bothered to follow what I said? Show me a phenotype produced by a mutation to a gene that is not normally what that gene does. If it is normally a gene for fur color, show me a mutation that makes something other than fur color out of that gene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2018 9:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2018 1:51 AM Faith has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 50 of 248 (836285)
07-13-2018 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
07-12-2018 8:06 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

Can you show an actual new phenotype from any of your many identified genetic changes? I don't mean comparisons with chimps or other creatures, I mean actual phenotypic change that is actually NEW to the creature and not just a known variation of a known trait, brought about by an actual genetic change.
If the mutation alters the sequence of a gene it could only produce a variation in whatever that gene governs; if the gene is for fur color the mutation will only produce a fur color and nothing else. Do you have any actual reason to dispute this?

Is this a tacit admission that you have no evidence to back up your claim that mutations can not produce new functions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 8:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 2:24 AM Taq has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 51 of 248 (836292)
07-14-2018 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-12-2018 10:05 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Have you bothered to follow what I said? Show me a phenotype produced by a mutation to a gene that is not normally what that gene does. If it is normally a gene for fur color, show me a mutation that makes something other than fur color out of that gene.

Yes, I did follow what you said. You did not say that. Why are you saying that now?

One example of what you describe would be those mutations that cause antibiotic resistance. These of course do not merely change the function of a generic antibiotic-resistance gene from resisting penicillin to resisting erythromycin (for example); they alter the function of an existing gene having nothing to do with antibiotic resistance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 10:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 12:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 52 of 248 (836293)
07-14-2018 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
07-13-2018 4:47 PM


Re: No New Functions?
It's common knowledge, or so I thought, that a gene is a section of DNA that governs or determines the expression of a particular phenotypic trait, so that mutations to that gene can only change how that trait is expressed, it can't alter the trait itself -- meaning it can't produce a different trait. So a mutation of a gene for eye color can only affect eye color, no other trait. This shouldn't be controversial, or if it is I have no idea how.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 07-13-2018 4:47 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 12:06 PM Faith has responded
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 12:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 53 of 248 (836298)
07-14-2018 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
07-14-2018 2:24 AM


Re: No New Functions?
It's common knowledge, or so I thought, that a gene is a section of DNA that governs or determines the expression of a particular phenotypic trait... This shouldn't be controversial, or if it is I have no idea how.

That is because you really don't know how genetics works. You are basing your ideas on an antiquated model of genetics where gene = trait. The human genome has 20,000+ genes, yet only a dozen or so can be identified as functioning as gene = trait. Most genes function in a network, meaning they affect a diverse set of traits, not always closely related traits either. Or it means that it can take multiple genes to form a biochemical pathway, meaning that changes in any gene in that pathway can affect the final outcome and alter the product produced and thus the phenotype.

Genes make RNA and some of that RNA is translated into protein. These become the building blocks that form the phenotype. These building blocks interact with one another and with stimuli from the environment to build structures, generate energy, respond to said stimuli through the modification of internal systems, and provide necessary nutrients and cellular processes.

Even the change of a single DNA base pair can alter the function of the gene product. It can change what molecules the product interacts with or even how strongly the interaction is. Some molecules have very strong affinity for one another others are weaker. This basically means how close the molecules need to come to one another to interact. If the affinity between two molecules is reduced, the interaction will happen less frequently and so the product or outcome of that interact will be reduced.

Major changes in traits (such as the types you are thinking of when you talk about changes in phenotypes) are thought to come not from changes in coding regions, but from changes in regulatory networks. How gene products are regulated and distributed throughout the cell and turned on or off throughout the different tissue types are fundamental to the phenotype. There are numerous factors that control where and when gene products are produced and what the ultimate fate will be for those products. Some gene products can be used for one purpose in a particular cell type, but for a wholly different purpose in another cell type. Regulation is key.

There is really no point in giving you a lecture on molecular biology. The point is, Mendelian genetics is merely introductory material and is only briefly discussed in genetics courses to provide a basic foundation for understanding inheritance. It really is not very useful in molecular genetics. But Mendelian genetics is pretty much the limit of your understanding when it comes to genetics. Genetics is much more complicated that Mendel ever could have dreamed.

Novel traits, or alterations to "the trait itself," are produced by :

1. Changes to the regulatory network that can alter the temporal and spatial expression of gene products.

2. Changes to the sequence of a gene product that alters its affinity or specificity to target molecules.

3. Modification of post-translational processing which can alter how the product is used within the cell or how it is exported and to where. Post-translational processing can even produce new products from existing products. For example, alternative splicing.

4. Duplication, rearrangement, inversions, and transposons.

I'm not convinced you really know what "phenotype" actually means and what constitutes a new phenotype... but that's another story.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 2:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 12:30 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 54 of 248 (836300)
07-14-2018 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by herebedragons
07-14-2018 12:06 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Yes if you add enough complicating factors you can make it impossible for me to follow you, if that's your objective.

Even the change of a single DNA base pair can alter the function of the gene product.

I know mutations CAN produce change in the phenotype, but using the gene as a model, the change can occur only within the parameters established by the gene or section of DNA in which the mutation occurs. If this weren't the case genetic inheritance would be too chaotic to produce anything identifiable at all.

Novel traits, or alterations to "the trait itself," are produced by :

1. Changes to the regulatory network that can alter the temporal and spatial expression of gene products.

Dear HBD, this is just a lot of abstract theorizing without a shred of actual evidence. What do you mean "can alter the temporal and spatial expression of gene products." Bring this down to earth please. You've got a trait that is governed by all this complexity. You say it can be altered by changes to this "regulatory network." You really need to give specific examples. WHAT trait, altered HOW?

And one point I was planning to make to Dr. A is that even if something does change a trait, that can't be beneficial for the organism in the long run if what's happening is that a new trait is replacing a trait that was hard won by evolutionary processes over millions of years. What's going on is that a trait is being destroyed, a trait is not being added, only replacing something that presumably was functional in its own way and now no longer exists in that particular organism. And if it is a strongly selected trait, which antibiotic resistance certainly is, then whole populations will lack a trait in order that this resistance be produced. Nothing added.

2. Changes to the sequence of a gene product that alters its affinity or specificity to target molecules.

Please translate into ordinary understandable examples. If you won't speak simple English and explain things in recognizable physical terms: trait changes how? you know I'm just going to ignore you, I have no choice. You'll claim victory but all you've done is bury me under a mountain of jargon. I suspect you don't even know what you are talking about in actual practical terms, you've got yourself bamboozled.

3. Modification of post-translational processing which can alter how the product is used within the cell or how it is exported and to where. Post-translational processing can even produce new products from existing products. For example, alternative splicing.

4. Duplication, rearrangement, inversions, and transposons.
I'm not convinced you really know what "phenotype" actually means and what constitutes a new phenotype... but that's another story

It certainly has to do with the actual functioning of the organism as opposed to the genetic stuff that makes it function.

Sorry it looks like something got lost here. I'll see fri I can figure out what.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 12:06 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 4:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 55 of 248 (836301)
07-14-2018 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
07-14-2018 1:51 AM


Re: No New Functions?
One example of what you describe would be those mutations that cause antibiotic resistance. These of course do not merely change the function of a generic antibiotic-resistance gene from resisting penicillin to resisting erythromycin (for example); they alter the function of an existing gene having nothing to do with antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance seems to be produced by the destruction of some other trait or function in the organism. For that matter, any mutation that changes anything at all has to do it at the expense of whatever trait expression it replaces. This isn't necessarily a problem in single individuals, where of course the mutations occur, but if it spreads in the population it will replace that former trait or function for the whole population. Is that how you picture evolution working? I thought it had to work by adding something to the genetic picture, increasing genetic options rather than killing off some to get others.

And besides, in the discussion of the immune system way back there on the forum somewhere, a couple of things became clear to me. That system is noted for its many alleles per gene, all of which affect only disease immunity in one way or another, demonstrating my point that the gene itself determines the product or trait or function of the organism and the mutation can only alter its expression within whatever limits it sets.

Or whatever genetic substrate is involved --(since HBD is multiplying such factors to no clear purpose that I can see but at least it seems to add up to something more complicated than a gene, although even all that complexity no doubt functions in the same way: it determines the trait or function of the product so that a mutation can only alter the function or trait in ways limited by the existing structure, whether a gene or something more complicated.

Anyway the other thing I noted was that the more alleles you have for a given gene, the more scatteredin the population is the effect of that gene. If it was a gene that protected against oh name something, it originally protected all individuals from that something, but having accumulated a bunch of mutations so that there are now many alleles scattered through the population, you are only going to get SOME individuals protectd from whatever disease is targeted by the mutation.

None of this it seems to me serves the idea of evolution. Seems more destructive than positive for any organism.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2018 1:51 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 4:21 PM Faith has responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 404
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(1)
Message 56 of 248 (836302)
07-14-2018 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
07-11-2018 4:05 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
I don't think there is a conspiracy, I think there is a habit of thought that is reinforced from many angles.

Angles like....knowledge and training? You really should consider the unintended light your comments throw on the design of your learning resistant mental firewall.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 4:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 1:26 PM Capt Stormfield has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 57 of 248 (836303)
07-14-2018 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Capt Stormfield
07-14-2018 1:22 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
I couldn't possibly anticipate all the ways my simple straightforward statements can be twisted here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-14-2018 1:22 PM Capt Stormfield has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-14-2018 5:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 58 of 248 (836304)
07-14-2018 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
07-14-2018 12:30 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Yes if you add enough complicating factors you can make it impossible for me to follow you, if that's your objective.

Do you want to play with the big kids and bring down evolutionary theory? Or do you just want to fool the ignorant? Genetics is complicated and extremely involved. People study these topics for their entire careers and you think that your overly simplistic ways of thinking about it can better describe what is happening? No, if you want to destroy evolutionary theory using genetics, you have to understand genetics.

Dear HBD, this is just a lot of abstract theorizing without a shred of actual evidence.

How could you possibly know that? If I were to show you the primary literature where the evidence is presented, would you even read it? Could you possibly even understand it? There is certainly evidence about how gene regulation can change where (spatial) and when (temporal) genes are expressed. If you change where and when genes are expressed, novel phenotypes can be produced. It seems rather obvious.

Please translate into ordinary understandable examples. If you won't speak simple English and explain things in recognizable physical terms:

I explained affinity... and specificity seems obvious.

you know I'm just going to ignore you, I have no choice.

That's fine. You can just continue on with your misunderstandings of genetics and simply dismiss those who study this stuff in depth.

You'll claim victory but all you've done is bury me under a mountain of jargon.

I'll admit there is quite a bit of jargon in my post. But first of all, those are the terms used in genetics. If you don't understand a term such as "post-translational modification", you can either look it up or ask specifically. And secondly, this is always your excuse, the terminology is too difficult to understand therefore you must be right and geneticists are deceived.

I suspect you don't even know what you are talking about in actual practical terms, you've got yourself bamboozled.

Right. You can't understand genetics therefore, I am bamboozled. How about putting the effort into learning about genetics and forego the insults. Being able to understand the terms used in genetics will go a long way.

It certainly has to do with the actual functioning of the organism as opposed to the genetic stuff that makes it function.

Is this the kind on "non-jargonized" statements you want me to make... statements that make no sense? Are you saying the phenotype “has to do with the actual functioning?” What is “genetic stuff that makes it function?” You complain about me using “jargon”, but you’re just using jargon yourself, it’s just “Faith jargon” that only you know the meaning of. I certainly can’t tell what you mean by “genetic stuff.” You do the same thing in geology discussions; make up your own terminology that no one else is privy to. Learn the language of the subject you are trying to discuss.

Sorry it looks like something got lost here. I'll see fri I can figure out what.

There were some issues when I was posting that message, maybe something got messed up. It looks like it is fine though.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 12:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 59 of 248 (836305)
07-14-2018 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
07-14-2018 12:45 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Antibiotic resistance seems to be produced by the destruction of some other trait or function in the organism.

How about giving a couple examples of antibiotic resistance or fungicide resistance and describe what is happening on a molecular level. Then describe how that fits with what you are describing.

For that matter, any mutation that changes anything at all has to do it at the expense of whatever trait expression it replaces.

What about duplications, where the original gene can continue to function and the duplicate can take on new characteristics.

I thought it had to work by adding something to the genetic picture, increasing genetic options rather than killing off some to get others.

Can't you just modify existing traits? I mean what is the difference between an arm and a wing other than a series of genetic modifications that result in changes in where and when the genes are expressed?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 12:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 07-15-2018 1:22 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 404
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 60 of 248 (836306)
07-14-2018 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
07-14-2018 1:26 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
I couldn't possibly anticipate all the ways my simple straightforward statements can be twisted here.

Twisted, or seen as transparent?

Such a subtle distinction, yes?

Edited by Capt Stormfield, : syntax


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 1:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019