disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

All "extent species" are prokaryotes or eukaryotes.   What else do you think there might be?   And bacteria are prokaryotes. Thought you knew.   Maybe, to avoid confusion, you might tell us what you think those words mean?

27 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

I think you are more interested in semantics than an actual discussion.

If you don't kmow what the words mean, then you're not going to communicate very well.   It appears that you don't know what they mean.  Let's clarify that first before you get into the details, O.K.?

28 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Whatever I say you will focus on the terms used, rather than the really trying to get to grips with logic presented. 

Words mean things.   In science, it's critical that you get it right.    Do you understand the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes?

29 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

I am sure you want to look clever. I'm not sure if you want to exchange ideas.

Maybe we should just make sure we're all talking about the same things.   And I'm not sure you have it.    So let's note:

 Prokaryotes are organisms lacking a cell nucleus and other organelles found in prokaryotes.    These include bacteria and archaea.   Eukaryotes are cells with cell nucleii.  These include the protists (old designation), plants, fungi,and animals.

Carry on.

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Gene duplication and the adaptive evolution of a classic genetic switch

Nature volume 449, pages677–681 (2007)

Christ Tod Hittinger and Sean B. Carroll

Abstract

How gene duplication and divergence contribute to genetic novelty and adaptation has been of intense interest, but experimental evidence has been limited. The genetic switch controlling the yeast galactose use pathway includes two paralogous genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae that encode a co-inducer (GAL3) and a galactokinase (GAL1). These paralogues arose from a single bifunctional ancestral gene as is still present in Kluyveromyces lactis. To determine which evolutionary processes shaped the evolution of the two paralogues, here we assess the effects of precise replacement of coding and non-coding sequences on organismal fitness. We suggest that duplication of the ancestral bifunctional gene allowed for the resolution of an adaptive conflict between the transcriptional regulation of the two gene functions. After duplication, previously disfavoured binding site configurations evolved that divided the regulation of the ancestral gene into two specialized genes, one of which ultimately became one of the most tightly regulated genes in the genome.

Interesting, I would need to see more than just the abstract. I'm wondering if their assumptions are correct. What if the well functioning organism with two genes came first, and the mutation with one gene of two functions only gains fitness under certain conditions? Is difficult to be certain of these things unless you observe the before and after in actual laboratory populations. 

[The Barbarian]

17 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Sure we know that genes duplicate. But the genetic code is complex like computer code. It cannot spontaneously produce new functions.

What makes you think computer code can't spontaneously produce new functions?   LISP, for example, does that.   And genetic algorithms, which mimic genetic variation, do it.

23 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

I admit I was battling to follow the full abstract regarding the Cambrian Explosion. They were comparing it to a new theory that the process took a longer time, and concluded that in fact it was a rapid explosion of life. 

Tens of millions of years is not rapid in any but geological terms.  And since complex multicellular organisms existed long before Cambrian, we're talking hundreds of millions of years.

 

[The Barbarian]

3 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Interesting, I would need to see more than just the abstract. I'm wondering if their assumptions are correct. What if the well functioning organism with two genes came first, and the mutation with one gene of two functions only gains fitness under certain conditions? Is difficult to be certain of these things unless you observe the before and after in actual laboratory populations. 

The odds of two different genes, mutating so that they both became identical are so tiny as to be essentially impossible, in the absence of some sort of selective force to make them so.    Since selection works on organisms, not molecules, not a very likely scenario.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

What makes you think computer code can't spontaneously produce new functions?   LISP, for example, does that.   And genetic algorithms, which mimic genetic variation, do it.

Tens of millions of years is not rapid in any but geological terms.  And since complex multicellular organisms existed long before Cambrian, we're talking hundreds of millions of years.

 

Are you honestly saying that the genetic code can program new code and produce that code in a new  logical order to create new functions? 

[ARGOSY]

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

The odds of two different genes, mutating so that they both became identical are so tiny as to be essentially impossible, in the absence of some sort of selective force to make them so.    Since selection works on organisms, not molecules, not a very likely scenario.

 

 

I wasn't referring to anything like that. I agree that is not a likely scenario. But parts of one gene can duplicate into another gene. This could cause overproduction in proteins and loss of fitness until the original gene is deleted. The end product is two functions in one gene. 

Yet we assume the single  gene organism came first and duplicated and gained new functions, instead of the two gene organism coming first until a part duplication event. 

[ARGOSY]

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

What makes you think computer code can't spontaneously produce new functions?   LISP, for example, does that.   And genetic algorithms, which mimic genetic variation, do it.

Tens of millions of years is not rapid in any but geological terms.  And since complex multicellular organisms existed long before Cambrian, we're talking hundreds of millions of years.

 

I'm referring to the Cambrian Explosion. And late Ediacaran. You are referring to earlier times. 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

  I'm referring to the Cambrian Explosion. And late Ediacaran. You are referring to earlier times. 

Yes, we have a long history of multicellular organisms, long before the Cambrian.   Since the evolution of full body exoskeletons coincides with the "explosion", it appears that it was due to the sudden ability to evolve specific niches.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I wasn't referring to anything like that. I agree that is not a likely scenario. But parts of one gene can duplicate into another gene. This could cause overproduction in proteins and loss of fitness until the original gene is deleted. The end product is two functions in one gene. 

That's not what we see happening.  Do you have an example?   Usually, since genes tend to have regulators, two genes will shut off when the right amount of protein is produced.   So multiple genes don't mean multiple amounts of protein.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's not what we see happening.  Do you have an example?   Usually, since genes tend to have regulators, two genes will shut off when the right amount of protein is produced.   So multiple genes don't mean multiple amounts of protein.

 

 

 

I'm not referring to what usually happens, I'm referring to what can happen, and certainly when a section of the genome duplicates it can sometimes cause excess proteins.

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

(Duplicate protein coding genes cause brain dysfunction) 

This contradict everything he says all the time approach does not make for good discussion. The context of my point was to ask for a link, so I can check which of the two organisms came first. You may be surprised the extent to which evolutionists assume the single gene organism came first, instead of the two gene organism coming first. This is due to natural confirmation bias as evolutionists are trying to find instances of new novel genes so when two similar genes are observed, they too quickly grasp at the opportunity to prove evolution in action.  I would like the opportunity to see a link so I can eliminate those type of confirmation bias possibilities. Are you able to provide a link with more detail so I can check their assumptions and conclusions? 

 

Or would you prefer to debate everything I said in this post, rather than provide a link? 

Edited October 12, 2019 by ARGOSY