(SWGO)DesertEagle wrote:Hobo wrote:(SWGO)DesertEagle wrote:
The key word is "re-evolve." It was there already, then lost, then regained. Additionally, you have changes in gene expression (the regulatory environment shifted around making some genes more active), but this does not constitute new information.
Those of use who do not accept evolution are actually objecting to macroevolution (i.e. the theory that massive genetic changes can occur to change a bacterium to a man over long periods of time. We totally accept microevolution (i.e. changes in gene frequency in populations) and the ability of animals to diversify by expressing genes that they always had but were not necessarily active before.
For example, there was probably one kind of cat type creature that diversified into the modern housecat, the tiger, lion, etc. However, the cat and say the elephant have no common ancestor. Basically, take a tree of evolution and chop through it at the point when it has a few thousand main branches. We accept the fact that genetic changes occur because they are observable, but we disagree with the attempt to extrapolate and say that it can cross major categorical lines.
I don't understand... you say you accept microevolution, but you don't think new info is created? What about gene duplication? It's a major function of microevolution, and is literally defined as creating new genetic material. Furthermore, pseudo-genetic self-reactivation doesn't happen often, and when it does, it usually creates negative effects. (i.e. certain cancers) that article did say one occurrence per trillion cell divisions. how can you attribute every change to organisms be because of pseudogenes being reactivated, and how do you know it's not due to atavism? And as a side note, pseudogenes are created from multiple mutations of a gene, they weren't just there.
There's good reason why you don't see any animals without 4 limbs, you should really read about analogous and homologous (vestigial) structures. If you can agree that genetic changes can occur in animals of the same family/group/whatever, what's stopping you from extending that concept into kingdoms?
Random stuff I felt like posting
link for support of creating new genes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11841181
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/triple-x-syndrome
Structural evidence for chromosome fusion:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/215/4539/1525
http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Again, new information is never created. It is always just loss of existing information. Duplication is not really creating new information even if it does alter gene expression (it generally increases it).
No, I am not suggesting that every change is due to reactivating pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are basically damaged genes, it takes a lot of mutations to make them I agree. Reactivating them is not creating new information. Fusing chromosomes is not creating new information. Creating new genes is not creating new information when you are reusing information (yes, you can create new genes from old ones, but you are generally losing information in the process and you are certainly never gaining it.
Microevolutionary changes are the result of natural selection acting on existing information. We believe that the entire genetic diversity of the animal and human world today was on board the ark. All animal species today derived from those animals as they spread out into different areas of the world and adapted. They did not gain information, but instead had the necessary genes expressed (that they always had) as driven by natural selection.
The trouble is the definition of species, it doesn't exist. In its place, there are several competing definitions. For example, you have 5 species of wolf that you would have trouble telling apart but only one species of domestic dog (and you know how varied those are). It depends on who is doing the classification, and taxonomy is a bit of a mess for that reason.
The best definition of a species I have heard is a population that doesn't have reproductive barriers between members (my ecology is rusty, don't sue me XD). All domestic dogs can theoretically interbreed, but there are populations of wolves that are separated from one another and incapable of interbreeding for that reason (they probably could if the populations were combined).
The reason we believe in "kinds" (baramins) is basically because the BIble indicates this. We don't know how wide a baramin is, so we cannot really correlate it with a modern taxonomic classification. It is certainly wider than a species and probably wider than a genus. We don't believe that natural selection is powerful enough to make a species evolve across kingdoms. It has also never been demonstrated.
The biggest problem for evolution is that beneficial mutations are very few and far between, and even the ones that exist are debatable. Being say heterogeneous for sickle-cell anemia makes you resistant to malaria sure, but it also increases the chance of having homogeneous children so you have a brake on population growth put in place by natural selection. Plus, this arises from a receptor being rendered non-functional, so this is a loss of information, not a gain.
Vestigial structures are actually few and far between. Many structures that people have thought were vestigal have turned out to be functional (appendix, tonsils, etc).
if every change isn't due to pseudogenetic reactivation, what explanation do you have for the other genetic changes?
When you create new genes, sure sometimes you are reusing old information, however some of these changes can be "good". Most new genes start off as mistakes. An example is a gene called syncytin, which used to belong to a retrovirus. Retroviruses aren't able to copy their own genes. Instead, they sneak their genes into our DNA, tricking our cells into doing all the work. Syncytin started off as a key viral gene. It used to help the virus fuse with our cells, but it got left behind in our DNA. By chance, some cells in the placenta started turning on the syncytin gene, with syncytin, some of the placenta cells started to fuse together. It turns out that this actually made the placenta work better.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693809
In this picture, all the limbs you see have bones in a similar setting, each one had evolved from a common ancestor through natural selection up to that point. What's the reason for believing in a taxonomic system created ages ago, when you have a more modern system that people have dedicated their careers towards?
Here's a picture of animals with vertebrate, they all start off with a tail posterior to the anus, a dorsal, hollow nerve cord, muscles arranged in bundles (sarcomeres), and cartilaginous, dorsal notochords. while they don't all have these things in they adulthood, they certainly do contain these things at some point in their development.
Species: A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
"there are populations of wolves that are separated from one another and incapable of interbreeding for that reason "
can you show me where you got this? I'd be interested in reading.
What function do appendixes (other than exploding), gall bladders, and tonsils have? Back when ancestors of humans ate tree bark or something, maybe it was necessary. I don't see any functions for them today.
BTW im slowly losing interest for this thread. my interest in these threads usually dies out in a couple posts, but oh well.
