What is Evolution?

[camanintx]

Simply stated... the occurrences of gene duplications are too rare and volatile to fit the evolutionary models.

Your estimate of the frequency of gene duplications doesn't agree with published literature but that is really irrelevant. With billions of organisms reproducing every day, over the course of time it is almost inevitable.

Now since you agree that gene duplication happens, maybe you can answer the question, are duplicated genes the same or different "genetic information"?

 

[deviant1]

Your estimate of the frequency of gene duplications doesn't agree with published literature but that is really irrelevant. With billions of organisms reproducing every day, over the course of time it is almost inevitable.

Now since you agree that gene duplication happens, maybe you can answer the question, are duplicated genes the same or different "genetic information"?

Wouldn't you have guessed? Pseudogenes (including duplicate genes) are considered by some to be damaged genes, and by others a source of new genes and (in favor of your argument) recent work suggests that they may be functional. It is believed to have occurred in the douc langur monkey. These langurs have two copies of an RNA-degrading enzyme gene, while other monkeys have only one copy. The extra copy aids the langur in digesting its specialized diet of leaves.

Meanwhile however, a duplicated gene may produce either defective proteins that can be toxic or fatal, or, at the least, will tax the cell’s resources and waste amino acids and energy. Because of this (according the the following secular paper), natural selection acts on

‘gene duplications, most often by deleting them from the gene pool or by degrading them into non-functional pseudogenes. This is because fully functional duplicated genes, in combination with the corresponding parent gene, produce abnormally abundant quantities of transcripts. This over-expression alters the fragile molecular balance of gene products on a cellular level, ultimately resulting in deleterious phenotypic consequences.’

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Bulletin, Cold Spring Harbor Press, New York, 15 February 2005 p. 1.

And now I am mostly tired of this topic so, continue on if you like but please include information that refutes with more detail than you have thus far provided.

 

[camanintx]

And now I am mostly tired of this topic so, continue on if you like but please include information that refutes with more detail than you have thus far provided.

I never asked you about the function of duplicate genes or pseudogenes so if you're tired of talking about it that's fine with me. I simply asked you if duplicated genes would be different genetic information or not.

I will assume you refuse to answer this question because you know that it totally refutes your previous argument that evolution cannot generate new genetic information. While mutations to duplicate genes may delete them or make them non-functional, you have to admit that it is possible for mutations in duplicate gene sequences to create new beneficial functions.

 

[deviant1]

I never asked you about the function of duplicate genes or pseudogenes so if you're tired of talking about it that's fine with me. I simply asked you if duplicated genes would be different genetic information or not.

I will assume you refuse to answer this question because you know that it totally refutes your previous argument that evolution cannot generate new genetic information. While mutations to duplicate genes may delete them or make them non-functional, you have to admit that it is possible for mutations in duplicate gene sequences to create new beneficial functions.

Actually I was trying to be polite. As to my personal opinion, I do not believe duplicate genes produce new genetic material, only recoding of existing material. New trait manifestations, yes.

NEW INFORMATION, NO.

 

[camanintx]

Actually I was trying to be polite. As to my personal opinion, I do not believe duplicate genes produce new genetic material, only recoding of existing material. New trait manifestations, yes.

NEW INFORMATION, NO.

You do realize that I am talking about the combination of duplicate genes and mutations, not either one by itself?

If a given genome sequence codes for say 50 different proteins, and a mutation in a duplicate gene sequence causes it to code for a 51st protein, how is that not new information in the genome?

 

[Somkid]

Ummm, there is nothing to shown. It is blatantly self-evident that creationism and evolution can overlap.

Creation is not real or provable thus it is not "self evident" that it can relate or overlap with evolution which is a blatant fact. Saying the two are compatible is a last ditch effort to prove the false as real. In the beginning evolution and creation were at each others throats as logic and science progressed creation fell flat on its face and intelligent design arrived in the disguise of science. Scientists being non biased gave the idea of intelligent design a close look only to prove it was nothing but creation with a twist rearing its ugly head to defy logic and reason once again. You say evolution and creation are compatible, maybe they are from your religious prospective but they are not from a purely rational, reasonable scientific view.
Just because you wish something does not make it so.

 

[deviant1]

You do realize that I am talking about the combination of duplicate genes and mutations, not either one by itself?

If a given genome sequence codes for say 50 different proteins, and a mutation in a duplicate gene sequence causes it to code for a 51st protein, how is that not new information in the genome?

This "new information," as you define it, is not functional in the world of genetic science. It's the four-leaf clover of hope for macro-evolution. Sure, four-leaf clovers happen, but they are mutations that return to normal (three-leaf) in a generation or two. So for the purpose of our discussion, this new mix is not new information that holds any sustainable chance of macro-evolutionary principles. I would love to come up with a better road to travel for the evolutionist but I am neither that creative nor desperate.

 

[camanintx]

This "new information," as you define it, is not functional in the world of genetic science.

If it codes for a protein, then how is it not functional?

 

[kmkemp]

Creation is not real or provable thus it is not "self evident" that it can relate or overlap with evolution which is a blatant fact. Saying the two are compatible is a last ditch effort to prove the false as real. In the beginning evolution and creation were at each others throats as logic and science progressed creation fell flat on its face and intelligent design arrived in the disguise of science. Scientists being non biased gave the idea of intelligent design a close look only to prove it was nothing but creation with a twist rearing its ugly head to defy logic and reason once again. You say evolution and creation are compatible, maybe they are from your religious prospective but they are not from a purely rational, reasonable scientific view.
Just because you wish something does not make it so.

Creationism and Evolution were at great odds for a simple reason: evolution is not taught in scripture. A quick review of Genesis would never lead someone to the conclusion that evolution was taught there. Therefor, it was seen as a direct contradiction of the creation story. At the time, there was little to no actual evidence for evolution, so why should those narrow-minded Biblists change their mind? Here we are a couple hundred years later and evolution has been firmly established as probable fact. Nonetheless, reading Genesis in light of evolution being probable fact doesn't, in fact, bring about much difficulty. In fact, re-reading the whole of scripture in light of evolution as a tool for creation makes absolute sense and makes one ponder why Christianity had so much of a problem with it for so long. I guess that says more about the Biblical literacy of most Christians than it does about what the Bible actually has to say, though. Of course, not every Christian believes that the Bible is wholly accurate either, so you have more than a few problems if you want to say that creation and evolution cannot coincide (of course, this is only a Christian approach).

 

[Somkid]

The problem is that religion and science generally do not mix and tend to contradict one another. I suppose Christianity is what comes up first as I was raised in the West however it is fair to mention that science and religion of most kinds do not mix it is not limited Christianity nor is Christianity any further out there than most other faith based beliefs .