- February 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm #17255
I have been sitting on this idea for a couple months, and I would appreciate some commentary.
I recently learned about epistasis and genetic heterogeneity. Apparently, you can get similar phenotypic results from mutations in different genes that are part of the same biological pathway. To me, this seems similar to computer programs that have depencies. If a program has a dependency, you must first fulfill the dependencies by downloading other programs.
This got me thinking about evolution. The processes underlying evolution don’t merely change what’s already there, they also make additions to what’s already there. If this weren’t the case, organisms could never become so complex. Common sense tells me that newer "additions" (mutations) will not have many dependencies built upon them, thus they will have more freedom to change (mutate) until they become something useful. It’s only when more dependencies are built upon that mutation that it becomes difficult to change it without messing everything up.
Is this a good way to think about evolution?
- February 17, 2013 at 8:33 pm #113567
Never mind. This is actually the common argument against irreducible complexity.
I thought I was being original. 🙁quote :
– – – – –
Since it might be interesting, I’ll give the prototypical concepts that led to me thinking of this idea.
Originally, I was thinking in terms of functions with specific requirements and functions with loose requirements.
Here’s an example: Blunt object can be defined in terms of what it does. A blunt object serves the function of bashing or breaking stuff. Many things meet the requirements for being considered blunt objects, thus the requirements are loose.
As a complement to loose requirements, there are also functions with specific requirements. A given thing is less likely to meet the requirements for a function with specific requirements.
Furthermore, a thing’s utility for that particular function will probably depend on how well it meets those requirements.
If this image is accurate, things that serve "vague functions" (functions with loose requirements) should have more variation because they can vary without losing much utility (usefulness).
At this point, I speculated that vague functions actually pave the way for specific functions.
First, I began to imagine this as a sort of "filling in the cracks" process, where things are polished over time.
One might also think of the specific function as an interaction of vague functions. Many complicated machines are actually made of relatively simple parts. Levers, wheels, axles, and pulleys aren’t very complex on their own, but you can use them to make complicated things.
The similar concept articulated in the OP is what I thought of after learning about hypostasis; particularly, how the same hypostasis can result from mutations in different genes within the same biological pathway.
- February 17, 2013 at 9:26 pm #113568
I took the above quote from a wordpress article, and the wordpress article was quoting talkorigins. Here’s the original source.
- February 18, 2013 at 2:55 am #113573
People dont seem to realise the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW organ systems, biochemical pathways etc etc. ‘Evolution’ has damaged young peoples ability to think (Mutations are mistakes). For a good laugh email the loser who runs talk origins and ask him about abiogenesis. I am taking back biology for creation
- February 18, 2013 at 11:37 pm #113578DarbyParticipant
Gene redundancy, anyone-?
- February 19, 2013 at 2:23 am #113580quote jinx25:
Well, this was more of a comment than an argument, but I’ll explain why this doesn’t falsify the theory of evolution. To falsify a theory, you have to make an observation that is inconsistent with the theory. That’s not what you are doing. Rather, you are pointing out that the appearance of organ systems has not yet been explained. If it’s true that the appearance of organ systems hasn’t been explained yet, then evolution might still explain it. On the other hand, finding an alternative explanation for the appearance of organ systems wouldn’t show that the theory of evolution is totally wrong, it would merely show that the theory of evolution alone doesn’t give us the whole picture.
Anyway, why can’t organ systems become more complicated over time and eventually split into separate organ systems?
- February 19, 2013 at 11:32 am #113582
I will assume you have not read ‘Origin of species’.
Neofuncitonalization is a myth.
Hypothesis-observation-theory. The claim that all life that is and ever was shares a common ancestor with a single organism 3.5 billion years is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis. Mankind has 6,000 years of written history/empirical investigation of nature (another word for this starts with the letter ‘s’ but i will not use that word as it is used dogmatically mostly in utter ignorance). No one has ever observed a fish produce something other than a fish, a bird produce something other than a bird, a cat produce something other than a cat, a dog produce something other than a dog etc etc. The claim that it can is not science. Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their ‘kind’ (fish produce fish, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats) This is science, this is observable. Every observed law of nature in written history (6,000 years) shows neo-darwinian ‘evolution’ to be a myth. Someone is welcome to take it by religious faith, but it is not science. BTW natural selection and speciation both reduce genetic diversity. Natural selection is horribly, horribly misrepresented by cult leaders (Dawkins et al).
- February 19, 2013 at 3:21 pm #113583
No, I haven’t read it.quote jinx25:
The theory of evolution doesn’t rest on that claim. Darwin simply observed that offspring will carry a variety of traits. The evolutionary leaps occur (more or less) gradually over many generations.
Despite that, some animals are capable of giving birth to members of other species.quote :
– – – – –quote jinx25:
I think you mean
observation –> hypothesis –> test –> repeat until it’s falisified or elevated to theory status
When you state the claim so broadly, it seems untestable, but the theory of evolution gets much more specific than that.
According to the theory of evolution, the fossil record should reveal a succession. A fossil that violates this would falsify the theory.
The theory of evolution also now rests on genetic evidence. Organsisms that should be related, according to the fossil record, will show more genetic similarity. This is also falsifiable.
- February 19, 2013 at 5:55 pm #113585quote :
In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
You have not read Origins so this will not make any sense but for someone who has
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article … 69/?page=1
150 years later Darwins poison legacy lives on. They started the science journal nature, every thing you ever see on TV (Documentaries (Attenbourough is an evolutionist) on nature) , national geographic magazines, straw men debates (Dawkins vs some catholic n00b) ‘Science vs religion’ is the official strawman (it is actually science vs religion, science vs ‘evolution’ religion, science wins ‘evolution’ religion loses) all geared to indoctrinate into Evolution: The lie.
- February 19, 2013 at 6:01 pm #113586JackBeanParticipant
I’m wondering why don’t you publish your science, if is it so sure.
- February 19, 2013 at 6:13 pm #113587
There is young earth creation scientists but obv they will never be on TV/in the media, papers etc.
This experience of mine is not uncommon among the scientists in the creation movement. All of us have published articles unrelated to creation in secular journals. Some of us have published articles that have data with creation implications, but not explicitly pointing out those implications. A good example is Robert Gentry, whose 1982 report [Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129–1130] of high helium retentions in zircons was the basis for my RATE helium diffusion project. But none of us, despite frequent tries, have been able to publish papers with explicitly creationist conclusions.
- February 19, 2013 at 7:49 pm #113589quote jinx25:
That ncbi article doesn’t state that there is no succession. You’ve only shown that, if there are successions at these major transitions, those successions are difficult to track.
I said "(more or less) gradually" because there is both gradualism and puncuated equilibrium.quote :
On the other hand, the finding of a bird fossil from the precambrian era would falsify the theory of evolution. You might argue that, even if archeologists found a puzzle piece that didn’t fit, they might force it into the puzzle anyway. I know next to nothing about homology, so I can’t speak on that any further.
However, genetics provides the test as to whether we are assembling the archeological puzzle pieces correctly or not. For the most part, genetics verifies the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, which suggests that evolutionary biologists are on the right track.
- February 20, 2013 at 1:13 am #113592
Until someone has read Darwins ‘Origins’ they are the mercy of university biology teachers who KNOWINGLY indoctrinate them/evolutionary biology propaganda.quote :
You have been psy-oped into thinking the lack of evidence for something=evidence for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The very antithesis of science (not laughing at you just the psy-op, its soooo sick, i was brainwashed too though, took a few months of reading the right stuff )quote :
The ‘theory’ of ‘evolution’ again is not a ‘theory’ (not change in gene frequency, or any change in any living thing ever). No it can never be ‘falsified’ because 1) Its not science to begin with 2) Anything on earth (even absence of evidence as you have illustrated above) can be used as ‘evidence’ for itquote :
Genetics/the very existence of DNA proves it never happened, thats the sickest part of the whole thing (BILLIONS of functionally sequenced nucletoide base pairs that given a single letter change may kill someone/give them a disease). 2 weeks of solid reading is all it would take if someone wanted to know the TRUTH about origins though the implications may not agree with atheism (there is no problem scientifically with mankind sharing a common ancestor with mankind, its the implications it has on a personal level).
http://austore.creation.com/catalog/gen … -1003.html
- February 21, 2013 at 3:59 pm #113599JackBeanParticipantquote jinx25:
Nobody could say that, since it’s nonsense.
One mutation could (potentially) kill you, but dozens of others do not. Moreover, our genome is optimized after milions of years of evolution. How much more would you like to optimize it?
What proofs of creation do you have?
- February 23, 2013 at 4:59 am #113603
University biology teachers knowingly omit the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW things like biochemical pathways (ie krebs, glycolysis, electron transport chain), organ systems (intestines, livers, kidneys, adrenals, etc). Mutations= mistakes. Hospitals are full of people with mutations dying of cancer and other diseases. Think mutations are ‘good’? Go stand out in the sun for a few hours on a hot day and get some ‘beneficial’ mutations or one could stick their head in the microwave and get some ‘beneficial’ mutations.quote :
The onus of proof is on the claim contrary to ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ AND every observed law of nature in recorded/written history (6,000 years). The fact we are having this conversation right now proves ‘evolution’ never happened. I did a link to Sanfords book ‘Genetic entropy’.
- February 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm #113606quote jinx25:
I didn’t say it was evidence for evolution, just that it didn’t falsify the theory. However, you did make a good point. There are points at which the supposed succession becomes difficult to track, which makes the theory more difficult to falsify.quote jinx25:
Then do you have an altertantive explanation as to why genome sequencing results are consistent with inferences based on the fossil record?
Now I will quote one of the linked articles.quote :
Multicellular organisms aren’t genetically homogeneous. A mutating organism will still have some cells that carry more harmful mutations than others. The organism could pass on its beneficial mutation without passing on all of its harmful mutations. On top of that, natural selection is also occurring within our bodies. Within the seminiferous tubules, severely defective cells may simply die off before they can divide (pass on their mutations). Thus the worst mutations will have less chances of being carried all the way to fertilization.
This does imply that cancererous cells would have better chances of passing on their DNA, but keep in mind that cancer has late onset.
- February 23, 2013 at 4:25 pm #113607
That last part was somewhat speculative, so don’t take my word for it.
I have been taught that mutated cells often die off.
- February 24, 2013 at 7:04 am #113608
The literature for mutation in germ line cells are on the internet. Anyway if someones interested he has a talk on youtube ‘Numerical simulation predicts human extinction’. Laterz.
- June 7, 2013 at 6:47 pm #113924quote jinx25:
Mutations can be good, bad or neutral. It appears that most mutations are neutral, while the fewest are beneficial. However, a neutral mutation can become beneficial (or detrimental) at a later time, when conditions may be different. One important type of mutation is gene duplication. A duplicated gene creates redundancy that may, through additional mutations, create new traits, organs, etc. This is one way in which new genetic material is created – one of the ignorant criticisms that creationists make.quote jinx25:
The onus of proof is on the person that makes the claim. Science has lots of evidence for evolution but there is no evidence for any deity. To say that "The fact we are having this conversation right now proves ‘evolution’ never happened" is logically invalid.
- June 22, 2013 at 5:46 pm #113982
You wrote "People dont seem to realise the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW organ systems, biochemical pathways etc etc."
Putting aside the fact that your wording here and in other threads demonstrates scientific illiteracy, Google and then read this "GENETIC DIVERSITY AND DISEASE RESISTANCE IN LEAF-CUTTING
ANT SOCIETIES" and then bring forth your argument against it with your research and/or sources from peer reviewed science journals that support it.
You also wrote "’Evolution’ has damaged young peoples ability to think (Mutations are mistakes)."
But according to YOU that’s impossible because, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, "Evolution: The lie" and again "shows neo-darwinian ‘evolution’ to be a myth". So, according to you evolution is a lie and a myth but yet is the cause of mutations? How so if not true? Please explain this contradiction in your thinking.
- June 22, 2013 at 6:50 pm #113983quote RabbitPhilosopher:
Did you read this article??? It does not say ANYTHING about adding new genetic information. It proves that greater genetic diversity leads to better chances of survival…
- June 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm #113985
I’ve read about have of it and you’re correct. However, jinx25 has written before on this forum that evolution decreases diversity. I should have addressed it at appropriate thread. In any case, this user doesn’t believe in evolution and I also wanted to see how he would counter the content of the paper.
- June 22, 2013 at 10:23 pm #113987
I meant to say I read *half the article. I have now read the entire article and, if you could be so kind, can you help me understand a term? What does "allotransfer" mean? I can’t find a def for it. In the article it’s used in this senence:
individuals may beneﬁt from the defense mechanisms of resistant individuals, for example through allogrooming or the
allotransfer of antimicrobial defenses."
- June 23, 2013 at 1:58 pm #113991AmphibitileParticipant
As far as I am aware Allotransfer is the process by which some cellular/molecular agent is transferred from one subject to the other. In this case it would be the transfer of the antimicrobial agent from an ant that produces it to one that does not.
I hope this helps
- June 23, 2013 at 6:22 pm #113998
Amphibitile is right. I only wanted to add that "allo-" means "other" organism of the same species (non-self).
- June 25, 2013 at 4:34 pm #114009
Cat and Amphibitile,
- July 1, 2013 at 5:42 pm #114038
- July 4, 2013 at 4:54 pm #114046
I already said in another post that this article has no PROOF of anything. Reading a long summary of other people’s conclusions does not help…
- July 12, 2013 at 4:11 pm #114081quote Cat:
The idea is that this one review paper provides citations to the primary research – I was trying to make it easy for you.
- July 13, 2013 at 1:20 am #114083quote thoffnagle:
Do an exercise – trace the actual facts. If you find any direct proof, please, post. I would expect that you will find quite a bit of chain referencing…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.