Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   oh look - an observed gene duplication....
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 43 (23360)
11-20-2002 9:32 AM


Allow me to predict any potential attempts at 'refutation':
1. It happened in a lab, so it is really evidence for Design!
2. That is not exactly, precisely what I challenged you to present, so it doesn't count.
3. The researchers had evolutionary assumptions, so it is question begging
4. The mice are still mice, so evolution is still a fairy tale.
5. The whole paper likely contains information contraditory to what you see in the abstract, so I cannot comment on this until I get the paper, and I will never try to get the paper.
Did I miss any?
Emphases and comments in italics mine:
**********************************************************************
Dev Biol 2002 Sep 1;249(1):96-107
Duplication of the Hoxd11 gene causes alterations in the axial and appendicular skeleton of the mouse.
Boulet AM, Capecchi MR.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5331, USA.
The Hox genes encode a group of transcription factors essential for proper development of the mouse. Targeted mutation of the Hoxd11 gene causes reduced male fertility, vertebral transformation, carpal bone fusions, and reductions in digit length. A duplication of the Hoxd11 gene was created with the expectation that the consequences of restricted overexpression in the appropriate cells
would provide further insight into the function of the Hoxd11 gene product.
Genetic assays demonstrated that two tandem copies of Hoxd11 were functionally indistinguishable from the normal two copies of the gene on separate chromosomes with respect to formation of the axial and appendicular skeleton. Extra copies of Hoxd11 caused an increase in the lengths of some bones of the forelimb autopod and a decrease in the number of lumbar vertebrae.
Point 1: 'New information' is NOT required to alter phenotype. One leg knocked out from the YEC information hawks...
Further, analysis of the Hoxd11 duplication demonstrated that the Hoxd11 protein can perform some functions supplied by its paralogue Hoxa11. For example, the defects in forelimb bones are corrected when extra copies of Hoxd11 are present in the Hoxa11
homozygous mutant background.
Point 2: The presence of a duplicate 'fixes' problems caused bya mutated gene. Beneficial in anyone's book. Both legs gone, YEC information hawk goes tumbling down...
Thus, it appears that Hoxd11 can quantitatively compensate for the absence of Hoxa11 protein, and therefore Hoxa11 and Hoxd11 are functionally equivalent in the zeugopod. However, extra copies of Hoxd11 did not improve male or female fertility in Hoxa11 mutants.
Oops - missed this 'excuse': It isn't all good, so the 'challenge' was not met. Right?
Interestingly, the insertion of an additional Hoxd11 locus into the HoxD complex does not appear to affect the expression patterns of the neighboring Hoxd10, -d12, or -d13 genes.
******************************************************************
Still waiting for lab reports of creation ex nihilo by the deity depicted in the bible, lest YECism is false...

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 11-20-2002 9:46 AM derwood has replied
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 11-20-2002 9:58 AM derwood has not replied
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 11-20-2002 1:19 PM derwood has replied
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-20-2002 6:40 PM derwood has replied
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 11:22 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 3 of 43 (23369)
11-20-2002 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Quetzal
11-20-2002 9:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Yeah, you missed at least one:
6. All of which proves the multipurpose genome (because of the duplications) and falsifies evolutionism.

Silly, silly me.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 11-20-2002 9:46 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 7 of 43 (23399)
11-20-2002 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fred Williams
11-20-2002 1:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Dear Mr Tree Rings = Code guy,
Please show me anywhere in the history of the internet where I claimed duplications have not been observed.
I never said you did, Moderator 3. Of course, you asked for an 'example' of a gene duplication and subsequent mutation conferring an advantage. I provided one, you tack on the extra criterion about 'observed.' That is the creationist way.[quote] Snip implicit attemtp to make face-saving accusation by Oil-of-hyssop-is-50%-antibacterial guy.
quote:
quote:
Point 2: The presence of a duplicate 'fixes' problems caused bya mutated gene. Beneficial in anyone's book. Both legs gone, YEC information hawk goes tumbling down...
LOL! So where is the new information?!
Keep trying, Dr Tree Rings.
Oh look - yet more additional criteria!
Mam and questzal - we all missed the obvious one:
8. No new information by my personal defintion.
That is (one of the) the point, totally lost on Mr.SNPs-are-removed-from-phylogentic-analyses.
The points are:
The gene duplication conferred an advantage ('fixed' problems caused by mutant genes); therefore, it meets your criterion re: advantage
Gene duplication - observed - can alter phenotype.
"New information required by evolution" mantra rendered moot.
It is obvious that a one-trick pony such as yourself would do his darndest to tryt to dodge the issue.
But your tactics are transparent.
And a bit sad.
Not to mention predictable.
The creationist Jerry Bergman said it best:
"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."
So please Williams, stop the pontification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 11-20-2002 1:19 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by derwood, posted 11-20-2002 3:54 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 8 of 43 (23400)
11-20-2002 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by derwood
11-20-2002 3:25 PM


Well, Fred used #2, and we forget this one:
8. Insult, insult, insult to try to divert attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by derwood, posted 11-20-2002 3:25 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 11-21-2002 5:03 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 16 of 43 (23473)
11-21-2002 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
11-20-2002 6:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx
I didn't check to see which category my answer comes under but I have spent a lotof time pointing out that we agree with everything you say on alellic copies and changes. We point out that that is not the primary differnce between genomes. It's the banks of new pathways which include new gene families - that's where we disagree with you!
That may be - for you, anyway - but that is irrelevant to this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-20-2002 6:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-21-2002 6:33 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 17 of 43 (23474)
11-21-2002 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by peter borger
11-20-2002 11:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
It was already recognised by Quetzal (although it neither falsifies nor verifies evolution), but thanks for your marvellous example demonstrating the MPG in action. blah blah blah....
Of course it appears that the MPG runs counter to the creationist information argument as well.
What to do now?
Creationists at direct odds with each other! Oh my! I cannot wait to see what happens now....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 11:22 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 19 of 43 (23476)
11-21-2002 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
11-21-2002 5:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
Well, Fred used #2, and we forget this one:
8. Insult, insult, insult to try to divert attention.

forgot another one...
9. To busy to answer the question even though it is so easy to...
9b. Will post the obvious answer to the questions in a couple of months (since hopefully you will all have forgotten that I said I would)...when asked again I will say I will post the answer in a couple of months (since...etc etc etc.

Also notice that Williams has yet to produce lab observations of the Hebrew tribal deity creating kinds ex nihilo.
Guess cretinism is just a fantasy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 11-21-2002 5:03 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024