disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

You have still failed to give any example of a duplication followed by a mutation creating a new active coding gene which adds to fitness.

I cited you several in the literature.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Evolutionists act as if this theorized process is a reality.

It's directly observed, so not theoretical.   It's the evidence that the theory explains.   Evolution is an observed fact.   Evolutionary theory explains why it works as it does.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Truth is an active duplication generally reduces fitness via excess proteins, as per my previous example of low IQ being caused by a common duplication.

No, that's not what we observe.    You have duplicates of lots of genes, and they don't do much of anything, because most of them have regulators that keep them from overproducing.   Since even single genes are only active periodically, it's a misconception that more genes mean more proteins .    And in humans gene duplication does not cause low IQ.   You're confusing gene duplication with aneuploidy, the duplication of chromosomes.   In vertebrates, it's generally lethal or harmful, but that's not the case in other kingdoms, such as plants.   But it doesn't do what you think there, either.   Generally, polyploidy means larger plants, because of space needed for extra copies of chromosomes, but they don't usually have other issues.  Many of our crops are much better than the wild varieties, because they are polyploid.

 

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

You say that isn't usually the case, I dont know where you get that from,

See above.   You've confused aneuploidy with gene duplication.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

There are many examples where duplications in the genome are a big problem, even Downs Syndrome shows this. 

No, that's wrong.   It's not a gene duplication; it's an aneuploidy, specifically one additional copy of the 21st chromosome, or trisomy-21 as it is known technically.

 

[ARGOSY]

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I cited you several in the literature.

It's directly observed, so not theoretical.   It's the evidence that the theory explains.   Evolution is an observed fact.   Evolutionary theory explains why it works as it does.

No, that's not what we observe.    You have duplicates of lots of genes, and they don't do much of anything, because most of them have regulators that keep them from overproducing.   Since even single genes are only active periodically, it's a misconception that more genes mean more proteins .    And in humans gene duplication does not cause low IQ.   You're confusing gene duplication with aneuploidy, the duplication of chromosomes.   In vertebrates, it's generally lethal or harmful, but that's not the case in other kingdoms, such as plants.   But it doesn't do what you think there, either.   Generally, polyploidy means larger plants, because of space needed for extra copies of chromosomes, but they don't usually have other issues.  Many of our crops are much better than the wild varieties, because they are polyploid.

 

See above.   You've confused aneuploidy with gene duplication.

No, that's wrong.   It's not a gene duplication; it's an aneuploidy, specifically one additional copy of the 21st chromosome, or trisomy-21 as it is known technically.

 

I did not say the example of Downs syndrome was gene duplication. I said it was an example of duplications in the genome causing problems. 

 

I pointed out an earlier example of gene duplication, which caused IQ problems. 

I'm not sure why you still deny that duplicate genes cause problems when I already sent you this link in an earlier post:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131091343.htm

(" Dr Gecz says the duplicated genes - dubbed HSD17B10 and HUWE1 - produce excess protein, which appears to be the trigger leading to intellectual disability.") 

Edited October 13, 2019 by ARGOSY

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Thank you for acknowledging that there was the sudden explosion of animal diversity and complexity shortly after the Ediacaran. Many evolutionists avoid the word complexity. 

This statement is unfounded blanket hyperbole. There is no denying an increase in complexity during the Cambrian Explosion. What we have attempted to show repeatedly is that the perception that development during the Cambrian occurred without fossil precursors is both incorrect and oddly persistent in the face of evidence. If a single Ediacaran animal gave rise to a Cambrian animal, that would be enough to contradict Young Earth Creationism, but there is evidence of much more.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

You have still failed to give any example of a duplication followed by a mutation creating a new active coding gene which adds to fitness.

Would you agree that adding color vision (instead of monochromatic) adds fitness?

There are literally dozens of gene families that demonstrate duplication and divergence. I'll offer the 14-3-3 family of cell membrane receptors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14-3-3_protein). Would you agree that the ability to respond to additional cell signalling molecules would add fitness?

There are many more, but I am beginning to suspect that presenting more evidence isn't going to make much difference.

 

Quote

You say that you have additionally included another link. I only see one link in your post. 

I included it in a post on Friday. I'm certain you read it thoroughly and just forgot about it  Before I post it again, let me again state that that duplication and divergence is by far the most active process in the generation of new genes, but de novo gene development is still pretty interesting.

https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/7/6/a017996.short

We have likely hit a saturation point where the addition of more evidence will be fruitless effort. Try to read what you have been presented with an open mind first, and then respond with evidence of your own. Repeated responses of "I don't find that convincing" really do nothing to further conversation.

I'll end for now with a quick reminder to another of your misconceptions:

Quote

The problem is that you guys fail to get into a creationist mindset, you therefore interpret DNA study as if evolution had already been proven.

I was in a creationist mindset for decades. What I learned about biology through an undergraduate and PhD education slowly led me to accept the scientific evidence that what we can see regarding God's creation is much better explained by evolution over long periods than a 144-hour creation period within the last 10,000 years.

[JTC]

On 1/9/2017 at 5:21 AM, justme007 said:

i'm not a scientist, i'm just trying to think rationally. i see many ways to disprove evolution .

1. complexity.

in order for any life to exist it must be able to reproduce. it doesn't matter if we're talking about single cells or large organisms. how would one define reproduction in theory? reproduction is a process very similar to duplication of oneself. duplication is when the "offspring" is identical to the "parent". in terms of complexity reproduction is equal to or more complex than duplication. i could expand on that later. the process of duplication itself is very complex. now imagine a machine that on top of its regular functions could also duplicate itself. imagine a car that at the same time happens to be a car factory, or a computer, and so on. that's what living organisms do. now imagine that a mechanism of that complexity originated on its own, "naturally", by constant mixing of molecules. that is simply impossible. evolution does not explain the origin of life.

I've had people my age disagree, but I don't think we have to disprove evolution simply because it was never proven. I must have been among the last students in HS and collage to be taught evolution is a theory and concrete proof was never found. The theory has many holes in it, or missing links. I learned this in the late 60's & early 70's. The fact is the more advanced science becomes the more missing links we find. We Christians know what's going on. 1. The idea of evolution is used to deny God (and to claim sin is just fine). 2. At this point, 2019, if the scientific community was to admit that evolution is not a fact, hundreds of thousands of people will be fired, some of whom have PhD's; and then millions or billions of dollars will be lost. Every museum of natural history will need major renovations along with millions of books, CD's, DVD's etc. will have to be trashed & remade. And since the atheists run the world this lie goes on and on.

   How can you disprove something that was never proven in the first place? There's even ample evidence to prove evolution wasn't proven, but the people in power, either squelch it or ignore it.

   However, with God's help you young folks may prove evolution is a failed theory and always was. It is not a fact nor was it ever a fact. 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

I did not say the example of Downs syndrome was gene duplication. I said it was an example of duplications in the genome causing problems. 

We were talking about gene duplication and then you cite Down syndrome as an example.  As you learned, there's a huge difference between gene duplication and aneuploidy.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

I'm not sure why you still deny that duplicate genes cause problems 

Probably because I never said they didn't.   The issue is that they most often do not.   Indeed, as the articles I cited demonstrate, they often lead to new and useful alleles.

Time for acquiring a new gene by duplication

T Ohta

PNAS May 1, 1988 85 (10) 3509-3512

Abstract

In view of the widespread occurrence of gene families in eukaryotic genomes that suggests the importance of gene duplication in evolution, a population genetic model incorporating unequal crossing-over was formulated. By using this model, the time needed for acquiring a new gene is investigated by an approximate analytical method and by computer simulations. The model assumes that natural selection favors those chromosomes with more beneficial genes than other chromosomes in the population, as well as random genetic drift, mutation, and unequal crossing-over. Starting from a single gene copy, it is found that the time for acquiring another gene with a new function is dependent on the rates of occurrence of unequal crossing-over and mutation. Within a realistic range of parameter values, the required time was at least several times 4N generations, where N is the effective population size. Interchromosomal unequal crossing-over at meiosis is more effective than intrachromosomal (between sister chromatids) unequal crossing-over for obtaining a new gene, provided that other parameters are the same. However, the genetic load for acquiring a gene is larger under the model of interchromosomal crossing-over. The relevance of this finding to the advantage of sexual reproduction is discussed.

 

 

The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes

1. Michael Lynch1,*,
2. John S. Conery2

See all authors and affiliations

Science  10 Nov 2000:
Vol. 290, Issue 5494, pp. 1151-1155

Abstract

Gene duplication has generally been viewed as a necessary source of material for the origin of evolutionary novelties, but it is unclear how often gene duplicates arise and how frequently they evolve new functions. Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicated genes experience a brief period of relaxed selection early in their history, with a moderate fraction of them evolving in an effectively neutral manner during this period. However, the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection. Although duplicate genes may only rarely evolve new functions, the stochastic silencing of such genes may play a significant role in the passive origin of new species.

 

How often do duplicated genes evolve new functions?

J B Walsh

Genetics January 1, 1995 vol. 139 no. 1 421-428

Abstract

A recently duplicated gene can either fix a null allele (becoming a pseudogene) or fix an (advantageous) allele giving a slightly different function, starting it on the road to evolving a new function. Here we examine the relative probabilities of these two events under a simple model. Null alleles are assumed to be neutral; linkage effects are ignored, as are unequal crossing over and gene conversion. These assumptions likely make our results underestimates for the probability that an advantageous allele is fixed first. When new advantageous mutations are additive with selection coefficient s and the ratio of advantageous to null mutations is rho, the probability an advantageous allele is fixed first is ([1 - e-s]/[rho S] + 1)-1, where S = 4Nes with Ne the effective population size. The probability that a duplicate locus becomes a pseudogene, as opposed to evolving a new gene function, is high unless rhoS > 1. However, even if advantageous mutations are very rare relative to null mutations, for sufficiently large populations rhoS > 1 and new gene function, rather than pseudogene formation, is the expected fate of most duplicated genes.

 

 

Gene duplication as a major force in evolution

Journal of Genetics

April 2013, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 155–161 |

• SANTOSHKUMAR MAGADUM
• URBI BANERJEE
• PRIYADHARSHINI MURUGAN
• DODDABHIMAPPA GANGAPUR
• RAJASEKAR RAVIKESAVAN

Abstract

Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Many new gene functions have evolved through gene duplication and it has contributed tremendously to the evolution of developmental programmes in various organisms. Gene duplication can result from unequal crossing over, retroposition or chromosomal (or genome) duplication. Understanding the mechanisms that generate duplicate gene copies and the subsequent dynamics among gene duplicates is vital because these investigations shed light on localized and genomewide aspects of evolutionary forces shaping intra-specific and inter-specific genome contents, evolutionary relationships, and interactions. Based on whole-genome analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana, there is compelling evidence that angiosperms underwent two whole-genome duplication events early during their evolutionary history. Recent studies have shown that these events were crucial for creation of many important developmental and regulatory genes found in extant angiosperm genomes. Recent studies also provide strong indications that even yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), with its compact genome, is in fact an ancient tetraploid. Gene duplication can provide new genetic material for mutation, drift and selection to act upon, the result of which is specialized or new gene functions. Without gene duplication the plasticity of a genome or species in adapting to changing environments would be severely limited. Whether a duplicate is retained depends upon its function, its mode of duplication, (i.e. whether it was duplicated during a whole-genome duplication event), the species in which it occurs, and its expression rate. The exaptation of preexisting secondary functions is an important feature in gene evolution, just as it is in morphological evolution.

[ARGOSY]

48 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This statement is unfounded blanket hyperbole. There is no denying an increase in complexity during the Cambrian Explosion. What we have attempted to show repeatedly is that the perception that development during the Cambrian occurred without fossil precursors is both incorrect and oddly persistent in the face of evidence. If a single Ediacaran animal gave rise to a Cambrian animal, that would be enough to contradict Young Earth Creationism, but there is evidence of much more.

Would you agree that adding color vision (instead of monochromatic) adds fitness?

There are literally dozens of gene families that demonstrate duplication and divergence. I'll offer the 14-3-3 family of cell membrane receptors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14-3-3_protein). Would you agree that the ability to respond to additional cell signalling molecules would add fitness?

There are many more, but I am beginning to suspect that presenting more evidence isn't going to make much difference.

 

I included it in a post on Friday. I'm certain you read it thoroughly and just forgot about it  Before I post it again, let me again state that that duplication and divergence is by far the most active process in the generation of new genes, but de novo gene development is still pretty interesting.

https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/7/6/a017996.short

We have likely hit a saturation point where the addition of more evidence will be fruitless effort. Try to read what you have been presented with an open mind first, and then respond with evidence of your own. Repeated responses of "I don't find that convincing" really do nothing to further conversation.

I'll end for now with a quick reminder to another of your misconceptions:

I was in a creationist mindset for decades. What I learned about biology through an undergraduate and PhD education slowly led me to accept the scientific evidence that what we can see regarding God's creation is much better explained by evolution over long periods than a 144-hour creation period within the last 10,000 years.

 

I see no relevance in the Wikipedia link, it doesnt mention duplications at all. 

However the other link is really good. Exactly what I've been asking for. I need a bit of time to research the terminology so I can fully understand it all, but the improved antifreeze genes in the Antarctic fish, and the Salmonella laboratory experiments were very interesting. I do question the full complexity and extent these changes can induce, but there does seem to be some validity there. 

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

I see no relevance in the Wikipedia link, it doesnt mention duplications at all. 

Gene families arise by duplication and divergence.

[ARGOSY]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Gene families arise by duplication and divergence

I didn't see evidence of that in the article. 

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

I didn't see evidence of that in the article. 

The wiki links I have shown you have provided evidence that gene families arise by duplication and divergence. The 14-3-3 gene family is indeed a gene family. The various members have arisen by duplication and divergence. This is a simple concept.

[ARGOSY]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

The wiki links I have shown you have provided evidence that gene families arise by duplication and divergence. The 14-3-3 gene family is indeed a gene family. The various members have arisen by duplication and divergence. This is a simple concept.

It doesn't prove your point, it assumes your point. Not what I was looking for. 

But don't worry, even if you don't quite understand what I was looking for, you have given me one interesting link worth looking into.