How New Genes Arise (yes they do)

[sayak83]

the radio report was as short of words as I am

genetics as a means of evolution?.....of course
the mechanism must change for the species to change

unfortunately for the Tasmanian Devil....the marker has gone sour
AND can be transferred from one individual to another

the cancer is contagious

OK. Poor devils.

 

[Deeje]

The fossil record shows a clear evolution of numerous species, if you'd care to look.

But that is just the point....If you really look, you don't find what scientists are claiming. They provide all their "evidence" but can't even agree among themselves the correct interpretation of it.

This quote from David Raup, himself an evolutionist is quite an admission, and refreshingly honest.....

"Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that the fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately this is not strictly true. .... The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."

Its hard to argue with a statement like that from someone who is an expert in his field. You end up pitting expert against expert. How do you determine the truth if they are equally qualified to present their findings?...weight of numbers? That is not always a good gauge of what is true....only a gauge of what is popular.

Denying "macroevolution" is like acknowledging inches but denying feet or yards. Small changes + time accumulate into big changes.

This is what you are programmed to believe....but "a little is good so a lot must be better" doesn't gel with the evidence in this case. It gels only with interpretation of evidence skewed to support an unprovable theory by those determined to promote it.

There is no solid evidence that adaptation sails right on into macro-evolution so that we don't know where one stops and the other starts. There is a limit to what adaptation can do and all of the creatures Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands prove that variations can occur within a taxonomic group, but nothing becomes part of a different family altogether, no matter how much time you throw at it. What Darwin saw were not new creatures but varieties of the same ones that inhabited the mainland, only beautifully adapted to island life.

No experiments carried out by biologists have resulted in any creature becoming unrelated to the ones it adapted from.....they were just variations of the same creature....new species of that creature, whether they could interbreed or not is irrelevant.

Please show me where this is not true.....without the use of suggestion or mere belief.

 

[Deeje]

Do not feed the troll. Is @Deeje presented any arguments that refute the evidence shown in the OP that novel genes can and does arise through evolution? No? Then he has said nothing relevant regarding thread topic.

Really sayak? You have shown us what? That genes can mutate.....that new genes can arise through "adaptation"?

I think we all know that they can, and that the mutations, if they are not neutral (affecting nothing important in the life of the organism) are almost always detrimental and will disappear with the defective creature. How many beneficial mutations are known to science? Look them up.
So, how many beneficial mutations are we talking about for every creature in existence?

Too many to even be feasible.

I have seen some people use the lactose argument as proof of evolution......Those with lactose intolerance in certain parts of the world (who did not normally consume milk or milk products as part of their diet,) can develop lactose tolerance after several generations of ingesting lactose....what does this prove? Ability to adapt to a new dietary component. Soooo...? Where is the evolution? Lots of people are still lactose intolerant in spite of generations of milk consumption.

The odds against evolution being true are as large as the odds against life arising by chance.

So, here is an exercise for you.....an important tool of science, is to propose a hypothesis and test it....right? In living cells, most catalysts are protein enzymes, composed of amino acids, but in the 1980s another kind of catalyst was discovered. These are RNA molecules composed of nucleotides that are now called ribozymes. Because a ribozyme can act both as a catalyst and as a carrier of genetic information in its nucleotide sequence, it has been proposed that life passed through an RNA World phase that did not require DNA and proteins.....now, assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years....
(taken from a creation website)

Can you dispute any of that?


And Deeje is female BTW.

 

[Valjean]

I can dispute pretty much all of it.

 

[Deeje]

I can dispute pretty much all of it.

I don't see it.....did you hide it somewhere....?

 

[ArtieE]

But you never end up with an entirely different creature....that is the point.

Actually, the point is that when genes continually duplicate and new genes with new functions are produced and added to the original genome it's impossible not to end up with a "different creature". Here's an interesting article about how genomes evolve. How Genomes Evolve - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Jose Fly]

What is described in these posts is adaptation, not anything that proves macro-evolution...No one can deny adaptation....we see it clearly in many species.....like the Peppered Moth, which is used as a prime example of "evolution".....it isn't. It's an example of adaptation,

It's so bizarre to watch you do this Deeje.

You keep repeating this "that's adaptation not evolution" argument, even though when I asked you to explain the differences between the two, you cited a source (Encyclopedia Britannica) that says they're the same thing. When I pointed that out to you, you left the discussion. And when I pointed it out to you again last week, you left that discussion as well.

And now here you are repeating it all over again, like none of that ever happened.

I'm really curious.....just what is your inner dialog on this? Do you acknowledge to yourself that our earlier interaction even occurred? Are you telling yourself that the interaction somehow vindicated you, and you're therefore justified in repeating this talking point? Or do you just completely block it from your memory and you operate as if we never had that exchange at all?

 

[Jose Fly]

But that is just the point....If you really look, you don't find what scientists are claiming.

This is yet another thing that baffles me about you.....you say "if you really look", but it's quite obvious that you've never looked. Remember when you claimed to undertaken a "serious study" of evolutionary biology, and when I asked you what specifically you studied you ran away? You couldn't run from that question fast enough!

So tell me Deeje.....what are you telling yourself here? How can you claim to have seriously studied evolutionary biology, while at the same time doing everything you can to avoid having to name anything you've read on the subject?

Is it that your "serious study" involved mostly Jehovah's Witnesses' and other creationist material, and you don't want to admit it?