It is currently Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:18 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:27 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
Quote:
Quote:
That link is forbidden to me for some reason. Most of the examples given though I bet are easily disproved as recessive genes or a loss of data allowing some already existing mechanism to work. I've gone over dozens of these kinds of articles and they always claim to have proven evolution as fact, but upon closer inspection they always fail to show anything other than recessive genes or loss of genetic traits.


You bet?


Yes, I can't be 100% sure because I can't read the article. However every single article I've been able to access with a little bit of research turns out to be a recessive gene or a loss of genetic traits.

Wait, so you linked an article that you can't even read as evidence of your position? I'm about done with you.

Quote:
Here is the Wikipedia article on the subject, and here is a quote that shows that it wasn't new genetic data but simply a gene duplication:

"In 2012, a team of researchers working under Lenski reported the results of a genomic analysis of the Cit+ trait that shed light on the genetic basis and evolutionary history of the trait.[5] The researchers had sequenced the entire genomes of twenty-nine clones isolated from various time points in the Ara-3 population's history. They used these sequences to reconstruct the phylogenetic history of the population, which showed that the population had diversified into three clades by 20,000 generations. The Cit+ variants had evolved in one of these, which they called Clade 3. Clones that had been found to be potentiated in earlier research were distributed among all three clades, but were over-represented in Clade 3. This led the researchers to conclude that there had been at least two potentiating mutations involved in Cit+ evolution. The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones sequenced had in their genomes a duplication mutation of 2933 base pairs that involved the gene for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth on citrate, citT. The duplication is tandem, resulting in two copies that are head-to-tail with respect to each other. This duplication immediately conferred the Cit+ trait by creating a new regulatory module in which the normally silent citT gene is placed under the control of a promoter for an adjacent gene called rnk. The new promoter activates expression of the citrate transporter when oxygen is present, and thereby enabling aerobic growth on citrate. Movement of this new regulatory module (called the rnk-citT module) into the genome of a potentiated Cit- clone was shown to be sufficient to produce a Cit+ phenotype. However, the initial Cit+ phenotype conferred by the duplication was very weak, and only granted a ~1% fitness benefit. The researchers found that the number of copies of the rnk-citT module had to be increased to strengthen the Cit+ trait sufficiently to permit the bacteria to grow well on the citrate, and that further mutations after the Cit+ bacteria became dominant in the population continued to accumulate that refined and improved growth on citrate. The researchers conclude that the evolution of the Cit+ trait suggests that new traits evolve through three stages: potentiation, in which mutations accumulate over a lineage's history that make a trait accessible; actualization, in which one or more mutations render a new trait manifest; and refinement, in which the trait is improved by further mutations."


In other words an already existing process was duplicated which allowed the bacteria to better process citrate while in an oxidated environment.


No, in other words, mutations accumulate over generations, eventually becoming expressed, and are then refined over generations by further mutations. Read your own quotes. A mutation is a change. From wiki:

"In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system."

Quote:
Quote:
Just because you aren't aware of it or don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Random gene recombination happens all of the time. We see this happen at a genetic level in labs. here is no "caused by X" happening. We are talking about extrapolating ideas from things that are verifiable, that there is evidence for, and every time someone shows you evidence, you say that it has been debunked, and cite something that doesn't debunk it at all, or you ignore it.


Unfortunately no one has as yet shown in the lab that this has happened. You are talking about imagining unverified speculation based on what you know. Its important to note that you can extrapolate incorrectly just as well as you can correctly.


It absolutely has been shown in the lab happening. I and others and even you yourself have cited multiple verified sources of this. How can you not see this?

Quote:
You and others don't seem to grasp what I'm saying. Not only does it require hundreds of mutations, they have to be specific mutations and if they aren't they end up making the protein harmful to the organism. Scientists have admitted that they can't find a path of one protein evolving into another because during that path the mutations would kill the organism or render it unsuitable for its environment.


You're describing the complex process of how it happens in detail and using that as evidence that it doesn't happen! And what scientists have admitted this?

Quote:
Quote:
So by your logic, everything that is a chimp already existed as a recessive gene in the first amoebas.


Your second sentence is pure nonsense and isn't what I was saying. Straw Man.


No, my sentence is not nonsense. When I said "So by your logic, everything that is a chimp already existed as a recessive gene in the first amoebas." I was being serious. Am I wrong in saying that this is your stance? If this isn't your stance, then please explain precisely what it is.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:31 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
shadyphoenix wrote:
You should write a book.


don't encourage him


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:34 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 301
Identity: Prismatic
Preferred Pronoun Set: Jerk
Ko wrote:
shadyphoenix wrote:
You should write a book.


don't encourage him

Well, he did just disprove evolution. Surely there's a Nobel prize involved, or at the very least a MacArthur grant.

_________________
"Only your real friends tell you when your face is dirty."
- Sicilian proverb


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
Lokiare wrote:
miss_bun wrote:
The phrase "in other words" is used to mean "another way of saying the same thing." But what you've said here is somthing different. Per the article you cite, there is a mutation in the the gene—a change in just one DNA letter that changes one of the amino acids. The change in the phenotype, the lack of red-yellow melanin, could be missunderstood as a loss of data. But it isn't. It is a change, as evidenced by the italicized quote above (please note the word "change" as well.) This is new data. You can say it is a change that doesn't matter, or that it is a negative change, but whatever else you have to say, it is a change in the data and not a loss of data. This is explicit from what you quoted. This isn't my data.


I bow to your superior semantic skills and cede that I didn't explain it as well as I should have.


It isn't that you didn't explain well enough. It is that you made an explanation that was completely counter to the data you used as evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
See above. That isn't what happened. A loss of a protein caused the loss of the red and yellow melanin production.


You need to "see above" yourself. There was no loss of a protein. There was a change in the protein that affected a change in the tiger. This is exactly what you keep missing. You tell people to read their own citations. You need to do the same. This isn't just a part of the citation you missed, this is the part that you yourself quoted.


Again your semantics are superior to mine. The loss of the 'function' of the protein did happen though.


This isn't about semantics. This is about you directly quoting and article talking about real change happening at a genetic level with new data being introduced, and then saying that new data is never introduced. You can't dismiss that as a semantic argument. It is a fundamental one.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also I'm not advocating they teach something else, just stop teaching false hoods and claiming the theory of evolution holds up under scientific scrutiny.


The reason they are taught is that they do hold up. You've not only failed to debunk anything, but you can't support your own claims, and when people point this out, you ignore them.


Actually, they don't and if you have any questions on specific articles or studies I'd be glad to run down the scientific proof that they aren't what they appear.


I have a specific question below:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When they actually try to argue with data, I show it to be misunderstood or false. I'm still waiting for an actual factual scientific explanation of how new genetic data is added to a species.


Please show me my false data or why anything I've asserted above is invalid or unsound. In the example of the tiger above, you've provided the data yourself. You can't argue with the source, because it is a reputable publication, as well as your own citation. The language is simple and clear, and there is no misunderstanding it.


I'm not talking about your data. The misleading or false data of the scientists and article writers that people are quoting.


Again, explain about the tigers. Where was it misleading or false? You yourself quoted the article.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:37 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Quote failure. So some editing is required.

miss_bun wrote:
lokiare wrote:
Yes, I can't be 100% sure because I can't read the article. However every single article I've been able to access with a little bit of research turns out to be a recessive gene or a loss of genetic traits.


Wait, so you linked an article that you can't even read as evidence of your position? I'm about done with you.


No, someone else linked an article and I couldn't read it because it came up as 'forbidden'. So I cannot refute their arguments because I cannot read the article.

Does being done with me mean you cede that you can't refute my arguments?

Quote:
Quote:
Here is the Wikipedia article on the subject, and here is a quote that shows that it wasn't new genetic data but simply a gene duplication:

"In 2012, a team of researchers working under Lenski reported the results of a genomic analysis of the Cit+ trait that shed light on the genetic basis and evolutionary history of the trait.[5] The researchers had sequenced the entire genomes of twenty-nine clones isolated from various time points in the Ara-3 population's history. They used these sequences to reconstruct the phylogenetic history of the population, which showed that the population had diversified into three clades by 20,000 generations. The Cit+ variants had evolved in one of these, which they called Clade 3. Clones that had been found to be potentiated in earlier research were distributed among all three clades, but were over-represented in Clade 3. This led the researchers to conclude that there had been at least two potentiating mutations involved in Cit+ evolution. The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones sequenced had in their genomes a duplication mutation of 2933 base pairs that involved the gene for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth on citrate, citT. The duplication is tandem, resulting in two copies that are head-to-tail with respect to each other. This duplication immediately conferred the Cit+ trait by creating a new regulatory module in which the normally silent citT gene is placed under the control of a promoter for an adjacent gene called rnk. The new promoter activates expression of the citrate transporter when oxygen is present, and thereby enabling aerobic growth on citrate. Movement of this new regulatory module (called the rnk-citT module) into the genome of a potentiated Cit- clone was shown to be sufficient to produce a Cit+ phenotype. However, the initial Cit+ phenotype conferred by the duplication was very weak, and only granted a ~1% fitness benefit. The researchers found that the number of copies of the rnk-citT module had to be increased to strengthen the Cit+ trait sufficiently to permit the bacteria to grow well on the citrate, and that further mutations after the Cit+ bacteria became dominant in the population continued to accumulate that refined and improved growth on citrate. The researchers conclude that the evolution of the Cit+ trait suggests that new traits evolve through three stages: potentiation, in which mutations accumulate over a lineage's history that make a trait accessible; actualization, in which one or more mutations render a new trait manifest; and refinement, in which the trait is improved by further mutations."


In other words an already existing process was duplicated which allowed the bacteria to better process citrate while in an oxidated environment.


No, in other words, mutations accumulate over generations, eventually becoming expressed, and are then refined over generations by further mutations.


That's not what the article about the experiment was claiming. It was claiming that the experiment proved evolution from new genetic traits. I simply showed it didn't come from new data, just a copy of existing data.

Quote:
Read your own quotes. A mutation is a change. From wiki:

"In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system."


Sure, it is a mutation and it is a change, but its not new genetic data. Its a copy of old data.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just because you aren't aware of it or don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Random gene recombination happens all of the time. We see this happen at a genetic level in labs. here is no "caused by X" happening. We are talking about extrapolating ideas from things that are verifiable, that there is evidence for, and every time someone shows you evidence, you say that it has been debunked, and cite something that doesn't debunk it at all, or you ignore it.


Unfortunately no one has as yet shown in the lab that this has happened. You are talking about imagining unverified speculation based on what you know. Its important to note that you can extrapolate incorrectly just as well as you can correctly.


It absolutely has been shown in the lab happening. I and others and even you yourself have cited multiple verified sources of this. How can you not see this?


I have also torn each and every one of them to shreds by showing that it was a recessive trait or a loss of a trait.

Quote:
Quote:
You and others don't seem to grasp what I'm saying. Not only does it require hundreds of mutations, they have to be specific mutations and if they aren't they end up making the protein harmful to the organism. Scientists have admitted that they can't find a path of one protein evolving into another because during that path the mutations would kill the organism or render it unsuitable for its environment.


You're describing the complex process of how it happens in detail and using that as evidence that it doesn't happen! And what scientists have admitted this?


I've linked to the articles of each of them in previous posts.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So by your logic, everything that is a chimp already existed as a recessive gene in the first amoebas.


Your second sentence is pure nonsense and isn't what I was saying. Straw Man.


No, my sentence is not nonsense. When I said "So by your logic, everything that is a chimp already existed as a recessive gene in the first amoebas." I was being serious. Am I wrong in saying that this is your stance? If this isn't your stance, then please explain precisely what it is.


No that is not my stance. I don't have a stance on that. It would be pure speculation, just like most of the evolutionists arguments. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in their arguments not postulating new theories. As I posted in earlier posts this is a common tactic in this argument. Its a logical fallacy to say that no alternative means the data is correct. I don't have to have a different or any alternative at all to show flaws in someone elses argument.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:40 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 3084
You're ignoring me Lokiare. We are not discussing the origin of species (are you trying to move those goalposts again?), we are discussing evolution. You pointing out otherwise is dodging that issue. Also, the first thing you said that is impossible is:

Quote:
The production of new genes and traits to aid survival


You said this was impossible, and have been trying to refute it. How is the argument suddenly not about this?

You are twisting the arguments, and unless you can continue to argue sensibly, I'll consider this topic closed.

_________________
Quote:
"If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors." — Galef, Dakka Dakka Forums


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:43 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 26, 2013
Posts: 680
Yarium wrote:
I'll consider this topic closed.

hooray

_________________
tony3 wrote:
the problem within society is there are idiots within it
tony3 wrote:
it never ceases to amaze me how terrible and/or stupid people can be.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:44 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1095
Lokiare wrote:
Quote failure. So some editing is required.

miss_bun wrote:
lokiare wrote:
Yes, I can't be 100% sure because I can't read the article. However every single article I've been able to access with a little bit of research turns out to be a recessive gene or a loss of genetic traits.


Wait, so you linked an article that you can't even read as evidence of your position? I'm about done with you.


No, someone else linked an article and I couldn't read it because it came up as 'forbidden'. So I cannot refute their arguments because I cannot read the article.

I linked the correct link to the article. It will not return a 403. Here is the functional link again:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01289.x/pdf

Also, there were two articles linked by Glasir, only one returned 403 Forbidden, you didn't address the other, I believe. Here, again, is the other:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~fjanzen/pdf/Hendry.pdf

_________________
PbP Characters
Umiki800080SDSS
Navu'ai008000KotS
ParkunFFD700Ixen

PbP Games
—DDN—The Mines of MadnessCurrent Map

RPG Personality


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:54 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
is this the thread where he said one molecule of radiation would kill you

that is my favourite stupid comment in the last while


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:58 pm 
Offline
Retired Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sep 19, 2013
Posts: 1028
Due to complaints about this thread it has been closed and will be discussed and cleaned up if it is to be reopened. As always if you have an issue with moderation please send a pm to either GobO_Fire or GobO_Althalus

_________________
Dark Lord of All

The Code Of Conduct


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:06 pm 
Offline
Retired Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sep 19, 2013
Posts: 1028
It has been decided that this thread will stay lock due to the complaints and the baiting and such that are going on that seem unlikely to stop.

_________________
Dark Lord of All

The Code Of Conduct


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group