disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

It seems you didn't understand my post

I got it your error.    You just don't understand the biology involved.

6 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

You've simply assumed something completely at odds with biology and evolutionary theory.    Or possibly someone who knew no better that you, told you the story.  It's just wrong.

I don't think you know what evolutionary theory is.   Just so we know, what are Darwin's four points, and how did the Modern Synthesis add genetics to that theory?   Let's go for there.   What do you think it is?

7 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

The earliest known fossils are of prokaryotes, known to haveo 1500 to 3000 genes. Yet most other organisms have more genes than that.

You are possibly not aware that the evidence shows eukaryotic cells are not evolved prokaryotes, but are rather endosymbiotic entities, involving a number of distinctly genetic individuals.  So your comparison would be valid if you used a prokaryote and a mitochondrion, or a chloroplast.   The most difficult (judging by the time it took) step was from prokaryotic to eukaryotic life.

Would you like to learn about the evidence for that?

11 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

You proudly mention water fleas having 30000 genes as if this disproves my case

It merely demonstrates that your assumptions were wrong.   The number of genes is not an index of evolution.   Often, there are fewer alleles when speciation occurs.   Because of the founder effect in allopatric speciation, the new species will at first have fewer alleles than the original species.   Over time, new alleles will appear and this will change.

13 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

If evolution caused this, we should be able to observe this increase in de novo novel genes when we observe the diversification of species within a clade. We do not observe that aspect of evolution. 

See above.   You have it backwards.    Most speciations occur in small, isolated populations, which will therefore have less genetic diversity than the species as a whole.   It's true that is generally not the case in sympatric speciation, but such speciation is less common for obvious reasons.

15 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

We observe entropy, predictable under both creationism and evolution. Yet the TOE  does nothing to provide evidence that it is in any manner involved in a process that adds novel de novo genes over time.

The usual process observed is gene duplication, followed by mutation of one or both of the genes.  It's quite common.   Would you like me to show you?

17 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

How then did most extant species get here?

Usually isolation of a relatively small group of individuals, frequently in a new environment.    That's what we have seen in evolution.  Would you like to learn about some of those?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

Haha....I am quite sure I know what entropy is.

Well, let's take a look...

1 hour ago, Alive said:

Everything goes from organization to disorganization to simplify.

No, that's not it.   Learn about it here:

https://medium.com/coinmonks/what-is-entropy-and-why-information-gain-is-matter-4e85d46d2f01

 

 

[ARGOSY]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I got it your error.    You just don't understand the biology involved.

I don't think you know what evolutionary theory is.   Just so we know, what are Darwin's four points, and how did the Modern Synthesis add genetics to that theory?   Let's go for there.   What do you think it is?

You are possibly not aware that the evidence shows eukaryotic cells are not evolved prokaryotes, but are rather endosymbiotic entities, involving a number of distinctly genetic individuals.  So your comparison would be valid if you used a prokaryote and a mitochondrion, or a chloroplast.   The most difficult (judging by the time it took) step was from prokaryotic to eukaryotic life.

Would you like to learn about the evidence for that?

It merely demonstrates that your assumptions were wrong.   The number of genes is not an index of evolution.   Often, there are fewer alleles when speciation occurs.   Because of the founder effect in allopatric speciation, the new species will at first have fewer alleles than the original species.   Over time, new alleles will appear and this will change.

See above.   You have it backwards.    Most speciations occur in small, isolated populations, which will therefore have less genetic diversity than the species as a whole.   It's true that is generally not the case in sympatric speciation, but such speciation is less common for obvious reasons.

The usual process observed is gene duplication, followed by mutation of one or both of the genes.  It's quite common.   Would you like me to show you?

Usually isolation of a relatively small group of individuals, frequently in a new environment.    That's what we have seen in evolution.  Would you like to learn about some of those?

 

 

Very predictably, you are battling to admit that most extant species have more genes than a prokaryote or eukaryote. Or bacteria for that matter. 

Yes please show me when a duplication event caused an active novel de novo gene that added fitness. A dormant function reactivated, or a duplicate that produced more proteins which add fitness do not count. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by ARGOSY

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Yes please show me when a duplication event caused an active novel de novo gene that added fitness.

I'm adding a link to an article that goes into a lot of history regarding the discovery of multiple example of important duplication events.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092831

[ARGOSY]

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm adding a link to an article that goes into a lot of history regarding the discovery of multiple example of important duplication events.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092831

Thanks, I can only see the abstract there. 

[Deadworm]

Fundamentalists generally live in their carefully insulated thought Ghetto, where they are protected from the most articulate expressions of opposing theories like evolution because they retrict their exposure to Funamentalist apologists were are poorly informed about the case for evolution.  As a result,

(1) Fundamentalists don't even realize that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.

(2) They studiously avoid honest and open intellectual inquiry by refusing to read or watch informed defenses of evolution by acknowledged experts like Dr. Kenneth Miller, who has written acclaimed high school and college text books on the subject.  I challenge Fundamentalists here to take the blinders off and google lengthy YouTube videos of Miller's acclaimed lectures.  btw, Miller is a highly respected evolutionist, despite the fact that he is also a devout Roman Catholic.  

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Thanks, I can only see the abstract there. 

Sorry, it may be my university connection that got me around the paywall. I was unable to track down another version.

[ARGOSY]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Sorry, it may be my university connection that got me around the paywall. I was unable to track down another version.

No worries, maybe you could give an approximate summary of your best example of evolution in action. 

Has there been any recorded event when a duplicate gene developed a novel de novo function which added fitness. 

(I'm not referring to a dormant function that was revitalized, that can easily occur when a sequence containing a start codon is duplicated in the correct place on the genome) 

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, Deadworm said:

Fundamentalists generally live in their carefully insulated thought Ghetto, where they are protected from the most articulate expressions of opposing theories like evolution because they retrict their exposure to Funamentalist apologists were are poorly informed about the case for evolution.  As a result,

(1) Fundamentalists don't even realize that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.

(2) They studiously avoid honest and open intellectual inquiry by refusing to read or watch informed defenses of evolution by acknowledged experts like Dr. Kenneth Miller, who has written acclaimed high school and college text books on the subject.  I challenge Fundamentalists here to take the blinders off and google lengthy YouTube videos of Miller's acclaimed lectures.  btw, Miller is a highly respected evolutionist, despite the fact that he is also a devout Roman Catholic.  

I'm always willing to have a good discussion about anything. I have an open mind to convincing facts. I find it is evolutionists who lack the open mind to have a civil polite discussion and to go out of their way to acknowledge good points. I wonder if you are able to have such a discussion with me? 

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Has there been any recorded event when a duplicate gene developed a novel de novo function which added fitness.

Before I get into detail, can you elaborate on what you mean by "recorded event"? Genomes are full of duplicated regions, but these duplications have occurred long into the past. I'm guessing what you are looking for is a duplication that has occurred since the advent of widespread genome sequencing, so a fitness-improving duplication that has occurred in the last 20-ish years? Or am I just reading too much into your used of "recorded" here?