Page 36 of 40 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 392

Thread: The book Darwin Devolves

  1. #351
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,231
    Amen (Given)
    1854
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, yes, that's part of Behe's argument, that breaking genes can provide a selective advantage. I don't think anyone is arguing against that, here.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Than there is not problem with the "breaking" of genes is a part of the natural evolutionary process.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  2. #352
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,620
    Amen (Given)
    533
    Amen (Received)
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Than there is not problem with the "breaking" of genes is a part of the natural evolutionary process.
    Agreed...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  3. #353
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,564
    Amen (Given)
    96
    Amen (Received)
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Though the APOB gene in the polar bear was what Behe focused on, to provide an advantage in a high-fat diet, as I recall.
    As i recall, there was an entire table listing all the coding region changes altered in polar bears vs. their closest living relatives. Maybe Behe didn't devote much space to this, or maybe it was just brought up in the context of this discussion.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  4. Amen Seeker amen'd this post.
  5. #354
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,620
    Amen (Given)
    533
    Amen (Received)
    269
    A quote from "Debating Darwin's Doubt", which has relevance to this discussion:

    Source: Debating Darwin's Doubt

    The play of forces, and the ensuing annihilation of advantage, is evident in Ohno’s model of duplication and divergence. Where previously it had one gene, duplication provides an organism with two. One gene does the heavy cellular lifting and takes the obvious selective risks; the other is free to explore sequence space and serendipitously find new things to do. Genetic affairs do not get more flexible than this. This is surely a step in the right direction, no? It is by no means clear. Protein perturbation studies indicate that ~40% of all mutations “reduce or completely abolish function,” a substantial portion (8%) leading to the “loss of all functions” (emphasis added). The rate of beneficial mutations, by way of contrast, stands at 103 or 0.1%. Absent selection, any duplicate will be crippled far faster than it will accumulate beneficial mutations.

    © Copyright Original Source


    The quote is in reference to this paper.

    And a quote from the key points of the paper: "Despite buffering effects, the fitness distribution of mutations at the protein level, and for whole organisms, is such that most of the mutations are either neutral or deleterious. This results in the rapid and irreversible non-functionalization of proteins that accumulate mutations under no selection." And we may note that selection will tend to remove deleterious mutations.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  6. #355
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    62,515
    Amen (Given)
    1253
    Amen (Received)
    22442
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    A quote from "Debating Darwin's Doubt", which has relevance to this discussion:

    Source: Debating Darwin's Doubt

    The play of forces, and the ensuing annihilation of advantage, is evident in Ohno’s model of duplication and divergence. Where previously it had one gene, duplication provides an organism with two. One gene does the heavy cellular lifting and takes the obvious selective risks; the other is free to explore sequence space and serendipitously find new things to do. Genetic affairs do not get more flexible than this. This is surely a step in the right direction, no? It is by no means clear. Protein perturbation studies indicate that ~40% of all mutations “reduce or completely abolish function,” a substantial portion (8%) leading to the “loss of all functions” (emphasis added). The rate of beneficial mutations, by way of contrast, stands at 103 or 0.1%. Absent selection, any duplicate will be crippled far faster than it will accumulate beneficial mutations.

    © Copyright Original Source


    The quote is in reference to this paper.

    And a quote from the key points of the paper: "Despite buffering effects, the fitness distribution of mutations at the protein level, and for whole organisms, is such that most of the mutations are either neutral or deleterious. This results in the rapid and irreversible non-functionalization of proteins that accumulate mutations under no selection." And we may note that selection will tend to remove deleterious mutations.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Considering that most mutations are already neutral to then say that most are either neutral or deleterious is effectively meaningless. It would in fact be just as accurate to say that most are either neutral or beneficial.

    Moreover, the selection process takes place at a higher level -- does it improve or impair an organism's chances to survive, reproduce and leave progeny. If the latter then over time they will be increasingly weeded out as those without the mutation out reproduce them. Likewise if the mutation improves their chances then they will out produce those without it.

    This is basic evolutionary theory and has been demonstrated repeatedly.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  7. Amen Seeker, shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  8. #356
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,231
    Amen (Given)
    1854
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    A quote from "Debating Darwin's Doubt", which has relevance to this discussion:

    Source: Debating Darwin's Doubt

    The play of forces, and the ensuing annihilation of advantage, is evident in Ohno’s model of duplication and divergence. Where previously it had one gene, duplication provides an organism with two. One gene does the heavy cellular lifting and takes the obvious selective risks; the other is free to explore sequence space and serendipitously find new things to do. Genetic affairs do not get more flexible than this. This is surely a step in the right direction, no? It is by no means clear. Protein perturbation studies indicate that ~40% of all mutations “reduce or completely abolish function,” a substantial portion (8%) leading to the “loss of all functions” (emphasis added). The rate of beneficial mutations, by way of contrast, stands at 103 or 0.1%. Absent selection, any duplicate will be crippled far faster than it will accumulate beneficial mutations.

    © Copyright Original Source


    The quote is in reference to this paper.

    And a quote from the key points of the paper: "Despite buffering effects, the fitness distribution of mutations at the protein level, and for whole organisms, is such that most of the mutations are either neutral or deleterious. This results in the rapid and irreversible non-functionalization of proteins that accumulate mutations under no selection." And we may note that selection will tend to remove deleterious mutations.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Ditto . . . repeatedly dumped by The Lurch, Rogue06 and I. Repeating trash science again and again just makes you more and more a fool with a religious agenda like Behe.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-22-2020 at 05:01 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  9. #357
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,564
    Amen (Given)
    96
    Amen (Received)
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Considering that most mutations are already neutral to then say that most are either neutral or deleterious is effectively meaningless. It would in fact be just as accurate to say that most are either neutral or beneficial.

    Moreover, the selection process takes place at a higher level -- does it improve or impair an organism's chances to survive, reproduce and leave progeny. If the latter then over time they will be increasingly weeded out as those without the mutation out reproduce them. Likewise if the mutation improves their chances then they will out produce those without it.

    This is basic evolutionary theory and has been demonstrated repeatedly.
    Also, many changes in duplicated genes occur in their regulatory DNA, not in their protein coding sequence. So, this is doubly irrelevant.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  10. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  11. #358
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,231
    Amen (Given)
    1854
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Agreed...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Glad you agree that there is no problem with the natural evolutionary process over time.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  12. #359
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,620
    Amen (Given)
    533
    Amen (Received)
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Considering that most mutations are already neutral to then say that most are either neutral or deleterious is effectively meaningless. It would in fact be just as accurate to say that most are either neutral or beneficial.
    According to this paper, about half of the mutations are neutral, and about half are deleterious. So most gene duplications will provide only degraded genes for selection to work with (we can disregard neutral mutations, which are invisible to selection).

    Moreover, the selection process takes place at a higher level -- does it improve or impair an organism's chances to survive, reproduce and leave progeny. If the latter then over time they will be increasingly weeded out as those without the mutation out reproduce them. Likewise if the mutation improves their chances then they will out produce those without it.
    Agreed...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  13. #360
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,620
    Amen (Given)
    533
    Amen (Received)
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Also, many changes in duplicated genes occur in their regulatory DNA, not in their protein coding sequence.
    Well, I think the paper was referencing protein coding duplications: "the fitness distribution of mutations at the protein level". But surely mutations in regulatory DNA fit this profile too, where most mutations are neutral or deleterious.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •