Evolution Question About Dinosaurs

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

The evidence is that when they tried to induce evolution by exposing e-coli to different environments over many years, they never observed even one succesful new gene with a new function that added fitness.

Who is they and what did they try to do?

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

the process has not convincingly been observed yet.

There are many scientific papers written about the origin of "taxonomically restricted genes". Essentially, many genes have been identified that are very close in DNA sequence to non-coding regions in other, related organisms. This evidence is very convincing to scientists.

[ARGOSY]

12 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Who is they and what did they try to do?

There are many scientific papers written about the origin of "taxonomically restricted genes". Essentially, many genes have been identified that are very close in DNA sequence to non-coding regions in other, related organisms. This evidence is very convincing to scientists.

You mean non-coding genes can keep evolving their ability while not coding until they suddenly can code and voila! A new improved Gene.

Lol I have reasonable deductive reasoning and it's more likely that a gene lost its coding ability and is now dormant. The non coding gene would never be found widely in the population of a species unless that particular gene had lost its usefulness in the environment it was exposed to.

[one.opinion]

 

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

The evidence is that when they tried to induce evolution by exposing e-coli to different environments over many years, they never observed even one succesful new gene with a new function that added fitness.

I think you missed this part in my last response - who are "they" and how, specifically, did they try to induce evolution?

27 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

You mean non-coding genes can keep evolving their ability while not coding until they suddenly can code and voila! A new improved Gene.

Yes - mutation is not restricted to coding regions. There are events occurring in genomes all the time that alter, rearrange, and even move regions of DNA from one place to another. Every once in a while, some of these random changes in DNA put segments together that are actually transcribed and translated into new proteins.

18 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Lol I have reasonable deductive reasoning and it's more likely that a gene lost its coding ability and is now dormant. The non coding gene would never be found widely in the population of a species unless that particular gene had lost its usefulness in the environment it was exposed to.

Is your alternate hypothesis that these functional genes were originally in humans as well as other similar primates, like chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but the functional genes became non-coding in all of the other primates except humans?

 

P. S. I can't tell yet whether you wish to have an informed dialogue, or if you just want to "win" an argument with a brother in Christ. If you do want a dialogue, "Lol" mockery is not a great place to start.

[Guest PinkBelt]

On 12/28/2018 at 12:23 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Dinosaurs are part of the reptile family and are cold-blooded.  Mammals are warm-blooded.  So why did evolution take two incompatible paths that still exist today?  Within the same climate we have both reptiles and mammals.  This seems like a failure of evolutionary theory as it now exists.  And what of the Archaeopteryx?  Did it have lukewarm or cool blood?

Dinosaurs are neither reptiles nor cold blooded.

[Spock]

11 minutes ago, PinkBelt said:

Dinosaurs are neither reptiles nor cold blooded.

All dinosaurs (including birds) were/ are reptiles. All reptiles, however, weren't/ aren't dinosaurs. For example: An ostrich is a dinosaur.

[Guest PinkBelt]

15 minutes ago, Spock said:

All dinosaurs (including birds) were/ are reptiles. All reptiles, however, weren't/ aren't dinosaurs. For example: An ostrich is a dinosaur.

Dinosaurs are warm blooded and therefore not technically reptiles. The current science on the subject says "A dinosaur is a reptile if you also consider birds reptiles." In other words "Ehhh kinda".

[Guest]

3 hours ago, PinkBelt said:

Dinosaurs are neither reptiles nor cold blooded.

If this is true, what is the basis for considering that Dinosaurs are warm blooded?  What would animals of the Precambrian Time Span be considered?

[ARGOSY]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

 

I think you missed this part in my last response - who are "they" and how, specifically, did they try to induce evolution?

Yes - mutation is not restricted to coding regions. There are events occurring in genomes all the time that alter, rearrange, and even move regions of DNA from one place to another. Every once in a while, some of these random changes in DNA put segments together that are actually transcribed and translated into new proteins.

Is your alternate hypothesis that these functional genes were originally in humans as well as other similar primates, like chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but the functional genes became non-coding in all of the other primates except humans?

 

P. S. I can't tell yet whether you wish to have an informed dialogue, or if you just want to "win" an argument with a brother in Christ. If you do want a dialogue, "Lol" mockery is not a great place to start.

My apologies,   I am often amused with how the "greatest minds" interpret their own studies through an evolutionist lens.   But I shouldn't let that interfere with your civilised approach,  an informed dialogue would be welcomed.  

I'm interested in the ape study, which particular gene position are we referring to, and what is the function of that coding gene in a human? Have you any links for me? Yes that is my alternative hypothesis but I would need more information to hone in on how to make sense of it all. 

What evolutionary pressures could make a non-coding gene simultaneously converge in one direction over time across multiple species?  You are making it sound like that gene is moving closer to human functionality within a range of apes, yet it needs to code to move in a direction, because without expressing itself it is impossible for any changes to become expressed across a population, that requires increased benefit/fitness.

The e-coli study that I am referring to showed many signs of adaptation.  But nothing that showed any unique additional coding genes in the population: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by ARGOSY

[Spock]

3 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

My apologies,   I am often amused with how the "greatest minds" interpret their own studies through an evolutionist lens.   But I shouldn't let that interfere with your civilised approach,  an informed dialogue would be welcomed.  

I'm interested in the ape study, which particular gene position are we referring to, and what is the function of that coding gene in a human? Have you any links for me? Yes that is my alternative hypothesis but I would need more information to hone in on how to make sense of it all. 

What evolutionary pressures could make a non-coding gene simultaneously converge in one direction over time across multiple species?  You are making it sound like that gene is moving closer to human functionality within a range of apes, yet it needs to code to move in a direction, because without expressing itself it is impossible for any changes to become expressed across a population, that requires increased benefit/fitness.

The e-coli study that I am referring to showed many signs of adaptation.  But nothing that showed any unique additional coding genes in the population: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

 

 

 

I like reading this.....humility.....God’s way! 

Keep this discussion so I can learn something. 

[one.opinion]

13 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I'm interested in the ape study, which particular gene position are we referring to, and what is the function of that coding gene in a human?

I think I mentioned earlier that there are many of these genes, but that may be an understatement. Here is a link to an article that studies these sequences in more detail:

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005721

13 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

The e-coli study that I am referring to showed many signs of adaptation.  But nothing that showed any unique additional coding genes in the population:

This is a common misconception about the experiment. It is not designed to generate novel phenotypes, but to observe adaptations to a single set of highly consistent growth conditions. The bacteria have been grown in the exact same growth medium, at the exact same temperature, and at the same starting concentration (I may be missing other constant parameters) for each new culture, for decades. Why would anyone expect novel phenotypes to arise? The bacteria have adapted to these consistent growth conditions by actually losing a lot of unnecessary genetic coding information, including genes for DNA repair. One interesting event in one of the cultures is a mutation that allows the E. coli to use the carbohydrate citrate as a fuel source. E. coli will ordinarily only use citrate under anaerobic conditions. A random shuffling event place a new promoter in just the right position to lead to activate the gene under aerobic conditions. Sometimes, random changes in genomes really do interesting things without a requirement for increased fitness (ie, de novo genes).

In any case, the LTEE has never been about trying to force E. coli to develop new phenotypes, so it is a poor model for something like the Cambrian Explosion.