Login

Join for Free!
119225 members


CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Cat » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:14 pm

Look at this experiment:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 480-s1.pdf

You are right about gene modification. However, it is insufficient to explain human evolution.
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Re:

Postby thoffnagle » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:35 pm

Cat wrote:All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS.


Again, I'd like to see citations that show that ALL direct evidence of evolution is evidence of gene loss, not just you cherry-picked citations.

Cat wrote:For human evolution to take place it would have had to be gene GAIN.


Why does it HAVE to have been gene gain? Is it only because that fits your preconceived idea?

Cat wrote:This gain is INFERRED from archeological data, not OBSERVED.


No, this paper by Demuth et al. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0000085) reports that "expansions outnumber contractions on the human, chimp, mouse, rodent, and ingroup branches" and that "Along the lineage leading to humans, 414 (gene) families have expanded and 86 have contracted.....These changes account for the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes from the human genome."
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."
Anonymous
thoffnagle
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:10 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Cat » Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:05 pm

thoffnagle wrote:
Cat wrote:All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS.


Again, I'd like to see citations that show that ALL direct evidence of evolution is evidence of gene loss, not just you cherry-picked citations.


There is no more evidence. If you can find any, please, post.

thoffnagle wrote:
Cat wrote:This gain is INFERRED from archeological data, not OBSERVED.


No, this paper by Demuth et al. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0000085) reports that "expansions outnumber contractions on the human, chimp, mouse, rodent, and ingroup branches" and that "Along the lineage leading to humans, 414 (gene) families have expanded and 86 have contracted.....These changes account for the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes from the human genome.



Please, read your article carefully, especially your cherry-picked citations.

Original text sais,

" we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes..." - key word is INFER = no direct evidence!

Than, it tells you that according to them massive gene gain occurred which answers your questions: "Why does it HAVE to have been gene gain? Is it only because that fits your preconceived idea?"
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm


Re: Re:

Postby thoffnagle » Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:56 pm

Cat wrote:All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS.


Yet again, I'd like to see citations that show that "ALL direct evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene loss," not just you cherry-picked citations.

If you don't like these inferences, please tell us what your hypothesis is for the vast genetic diversity that we see today.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."
Anonymous
thoffnagle
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:10 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Cat » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:26 am

thoffnagle wrote:
Cat wrote:All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS.


Yet again, I'd like to see citations that show that "ALL direct evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene loss," not just you cherry-picked citations.

If you don't like these inferences, please tell us what your hypothesis is for the vast genetic diversity that we see today.


The only way to prove the absence of evidence is to search for evidence of the contrary. I am saying that there is an absence of evidence and you want to see references of absence of evidence??? If you are trying to establish fact of gene gain - you need to find evidence of it (direct proof that is). I have not seen any to date...
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests