Before going into the quotes...

I think part of the issue, Lokiare, is that you're expecting new genes to be created for old situations. For example, the yellow and blue snakes in the desert. Very quickly we'll see the trait of yellow become dominant. Like you said in this case, it's already there, so it's genetically very easy for it to become dominant. What's much more rare is for the snake to turn light brown if that trait never existed. Nevertheless, this process can happen. Before 1500 there were no records of white tigers... so where did they come from? Turns out a new gene was produced that inhibited the production of the striking orange coats!

http://www.livescience.com/34632-white-tiger-color-mystery-solved.html

Neato!

So what I'm saying is that it's much easier to find situations where an old gene/protein simply takes up the function of the new requirement rather than a whole new protein being created, and as such it's much more difficult to study. Carrying on...



That's what I mean. The sentence you provided can be warped around a bunch of times to say the same things in different ways. However, when you further break it down into the basic language, you'll find that you can say lots of different things to:

Today, the heavens are azure.
(adverb), the (noun) (verb "to be") (adjective).
Oddly, the cow is flumoxed.

The result? New information!



That's not really how the Homunculus fallacy works. There is no infinite regress here, which is the basis of the homunculus fallacy. It would be a homunculus fallacy if we said that proteins require a change in the DNA which requires a change in the proteins, because then it would infinitely regress. However, even if we assume that there is a regress here (basing theories on a bad theory means that the new theory is also bad and will require a new theory), then the argument is still invalid, as it makes an assumption that the new theory will be bad. I think these discussions are evidence that non-evolutionary models are always considered and tested in addition to standard tests. However, these other models are not able to stand up to the same amount of scrutiny as the current model. Both models collapse at the end (only because we still have more to learn), but as the evolutionary model can withstand greater scrutiny to further along the line, it makes logical sense that it is closer to the "true" final answer.

By example, if an earthquake happens, and I say it happened because of tectonic plates and you say it happened because of a flying saucer, both hypothesis can be tested, and both will eventually fail. The difference is that yours will fail much sooner (no laser beams detected, etc.), while mine will fail only once we start trying to locate the exact rock that broke that triggered the cascade of tectonic pressure release. Similarily, non-evolutionary models collapse sooner under scientific scrutiny than evolutionary models - but the evolutionary model does still collapse if you look far enough, such as what you are doing. That does not mean that the theory is wrong, only that there continue to be portions of the theory that need to be filled in.

Newton's model is entirely false, sorry to say. There is no gravitational constant. In fact, in Relativistic models, there is no gravity - just a curvature of space. Objects of mass do not "pull" on each other. If I fire a rocket directly perpendicular to Earth and start falling towards it, it won't be because Earth is pulling me, or because I fired rockets in the wrong direction... my space-time momentum literally makes a straight line into a visually curved one.

Newton's theory is entirely false, not just imprecise. However, even though it is false, it is still very useful for most day to day situations, and Force is much easier to calculate than Tensors (space-time points and movements). As such, we still use it.

Evolutionary models may not be perfect, but they describe what we see so well that until a better model comes along, we might as well use it.



Unfortunately, science disagrees with you:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703000338 - Evolution by gene duplication: an update
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/2 - Inventing an arsenal: adaptive evolution and neofunctionalization of snake venom phospholipase A2 genes
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n12/full/nrg2482.html - How duplicated genes find new functions
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092831?journalCode=genet& - DUPLICATION AND DIVERGENCE: The Evolution of New Genes and Old Ideas
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6983/full/nature02424.html - Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1460548/ - How keeping around junk DNA through gene duplication helps increase odds of beneficial new traits

(there's lots more if you do a Google search, though admittedly they tend to be locked up in paid-for peer-review journals)

That said, I was especially tempted to look at the last one on that list.

Gene duplication is viable, even if it results in a greater risk of deleterious mutations, due to the greater chance and probabilities (far higher than the numbers you've quoted) of hitting beneficial new traits.

To me, this is like saying math classes are biased against anything that isn't correct math. Evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for how we got here. To teach students opposing views that are either unfalsifiable, or even verifiably wrong, is bad. Researchers are welcome to experiment and study and come to whatever conclusions they can support, but the reason anything that isn't evolutionary theory isn't being taught in schools is that every alternative is based on faith and/or unsound or invalid reasoning. I've literally never heard anyone say "I don't think evolutionary theory is right, but neither are any of those other crackpot ideas. We still need more data. The conclusions we have drawn from the data we have is premature." But no one who disagrees with evolutionary theory ever argues with the theory. They try to argue with the actual, verifiable data. Your statement of "we have never been able to witness new traits occurring" is provably false, and has been disproven in this thread multiple times.

You're pulling the assumption that the gene already exists out of nowhere. You are asserting that the gene already existed based on the assumption that new traits can't evolve, and using the that assertion (that the genes already existed recessively rather than evolving) as evidence that new traits can't evolve.



This "article" by PapaGiorgio is not peer reviewed, and unscientific. I read the entire thing, and it is nothing but a bunch of questions asked by someone who is clearly biased, asks questions that serve only as evidence of his lack of understanding and relevant education, and in addition to not being peer reviewed or even published by a legitimate publication at all, he doesn't actually even make any assertions as far as I can tell, never mind any that actually debunk the study. This article contains no facts that I can see, beyond those quoted in the original study. It has about as much weight and scientific merit as a comment on someone's youtube video.



Again, I read this article. Please cite examples from the text. I couldn't find any.



First of all, please cite proof of this specific number, and second realize that inbreeding mutations are new traits evolving that did not exist before. Something like 70% of inbreeding mutations are harmful, and most of the rest are either weakly expressed or completely neutral, but that does not change the fact that these are changes in the gene structure and not preexisting but recessive traits being expressed, and that some are even beneficial. You just cited evidence that debunks your entire stance.



"I highly doubt" is not evidence, and isn't worth mentioning if you are trying to convince anyone of anything.



Cite evidence please.



You bet?



What section of variables is ignored? Science is about using the best explanation for what we see. A bunch of stuff isn't getting made up to support these explanations, we've seen these mutations. At a macro level, and at a bacterial level, which we DO have DNA sequencing for:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ktv9VOcF8E



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.



I've already answered this above, and others have any other times as well, but you're still citing the mechanism that makes evolution work, and saying it proves that it doesn't. Just because most of some types of mutations such as inbreeding produce negative results doesn't mean that the mechanism doesn't exist. In the same works you've cited, it is outlined that positive change does happen, and has been documented in lab settings, as well as in nature. At a macro and micro scale.



Okay first, how does it represent a loss of genetic data? There is no "loss of data," there is only change. All of our dna is four nucleobases combined in different ways. But secondly, there were no chimps 500 million years ago. So by your logic, everything that is a chimp already existed as a recessive gene in the first amoebas.




What. That you can acknowledge one and not the other blows my mind. Especially since it appears to be a distinction based on pure whim, as far as I can tell.

it is hard to get good information on controversial topics i imagine

Just a heads-up: I've removed some posts from this thread.

Pro tip: Hanging a lampshade on the fact that your post is off-topic doesn't magically make it on-topic.

what is controversial is oppositions to evolutionary biology i imagine mostly because of the ties to creationism and other religious beliefs

it is controversial in the sense that there is stigma attached to opposing it academically. (that is just a guess though i do not actually know anything about academic communities)

Yes, and there's stigma over opposing 1+1=2, or that carbon has six protons, or that the Earth is several billion years old. Your point?

There shouldn't be stigma. There should be an analysis of the presented evidence.

If someone's going to oppose it, they need to present scientific evidence doing so. If they don't, there doesn't need to be any stigma against it. No one needs to be stigmatized for their beliefs; we're humans, we have them. As long as it's recognized as a belief.

There also shouldn't be any stigma at all on being skeptical. Asking questions to see if there are holes in evidence or theory is fine.

Where there is stigma is in presenting an opposition as fact, without supporting evidence, and using misdirection and exaggeration to ask fake-skeptical questions.

There should be a stigma over repeated assertions of laughably false claims. Period, the end. That person is shown to either be irrational, morally bankrupt, or stupid and has no business being taken seriously.
That's kinda where I what I was saying. I just expect people to have critical reading skills at the level where I don't have to explicitly spell everything out.

Well first off they are blogs written by scientists so it's a kind of lay man's peer review.

Second I'm not saying the days presented in the chart isn't real or helpful or anything. I'm saying it's irrelevant to my point. it's a red herring.

third, most of these arguments fail basic logic tests and the scientific process is not followed as is pointed out in the articles.

For the most part this discussion has gotten a lot father than most usually the evolutionists bow out with ad hominem attacks, character assassination, or any number of dirty tactics not suited to a real scientific debate. I'm glad at least some have tried to be intellectually honest.

this all allows us to educate people on the facts.

so far no one has refuted my points on how new genetic data is not added to the DNA of creatures. Until someone can do this the theory of evolution as a whole is unworkable.

you're being ironic, right?

he's being ironic, right?

That trying to oppose something that society strongly feels is true, even if they are wrong, is difficult. There's a reason for there being a lack of legitimate material attacking evolution beyond the inability for such materials to be legitimate.

No, no it isn't.
Aw, that's adorable! Did loki learn a new word?
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
What, like facts?
So am I. Shame you're not among them.
Oh I wish.
No, not really.
No, no there really isn't. In fact, that post is so inane that I'm having trouble believing that it's not some horribly depressing joke.

I often hear stories about scientists in earlier eras promoting their work and people trying to take their head for it. More recently there was the story about professor who's work promoted racial profiling, and he had to teach his classes via video, because there were so many people threatening him. I imagine that even if your idea isn't so out there that people react violently, you would still have to overcome a rather large bias to have your ideas taken seriously.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in evolution, my only point is that if you're someone who seriously wants to oppose evolution and feels that the science supports it, you're going to have a hard time doing so, regardless of the actual content of your case.

Except, Lokaire, that would be Moving the Goalposts, another logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts. Scientifically, I have no problem with you asking what the proof on how new DNA sequences or proteins develop (despite me offering a list of sources), but if all you're going to do is continue to ask for the next post to be passed each time, then you are constructing a logically unsound standpoint. You are free to believe what you will, but requesting further and deeper proof each time is not a sound way to debate. It IS a good way to do science, but you will inevitably hit a wall of lack of understanding.

It's like when a child just keeps asking "why?". It doesn't matter how much you explain it, another "why?" is always around the corner. It will be impossible for there not to be. That said, you cannot throw out all the science that leads up to that last why just because you don't understand the last one or are unable/unwilling to do the work yourself.

Gene Duplication is a recognized means of adding new information to the genetic code. You may not agree with that and may question the studies, but it answers your question. I cannot answer questions about those studies for you, and so you declaring the studies frivilous, or falsely claiming that you simply know better than them, is ludicrous. That would be a Straw Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

...How so?

Let's assume for a moment that you're absolutely right that no new genetic data can be added to DNA through mutation. How does that, for even a moment, disprove the theory of evolution as a whole? Evolution does not require the addition of DNA--it's just as applicable to cases where already-existing DNA is suppressed or formerly-recessive traits become dominant, as you yourself have argued happens, and that doesn't require any new genetic data being added. It also does not require any particular method of DNA alteration.

The only thing that that assumption would mean is that either A) somehow all genetic data is preexisting (which is perfectly allowable within evolutionary theory) or B) there exists some other method of genetic data being added to DNA (which, again, is perfectly allowable within evolutionary theory).

Not really. I've never argued against the loss of genetic data as being against survival of the fittest and adaptation to environment.

You can read the details here, where they explain:

"The SLC45A2 gene makes a protein of the same name, which consists of 560 amino acids. A single mutation in the gene—a change in just one DNA letter—switches one of those 560 amino acids from an alanine to a valine. This distorts the protein’s shape, and potentially prevents it from taking part in the creation of red-yellow melanin. Every white tiger has two copies of this mutated gene, and can only make the distorted protein. That’s all it takes to change their coats from orange to white."

In other words the proteins that cause normal coloring stop functioning due to a negative mutation that prevents them from working. Like I've said, people pull articles and studies like this out all the time, but fail to actually read the details.



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



Sure but none of that came from an iterative process that is checked and rechecked. It would be like trying to change one letter at a time while your computer auto-spell checked it and changed it back or threw up errors.



I already addressed this in a post above. Yes there is an infinite regress, it just takes different forms in each iteration. The idea behind it is 'well something we don't know about does that'. They start with 'somehow new genetic traits are added' then they regress that to 'somehow mutations cause genetic traits to be added' then they regress to 'genetic mutations are caused by bad copies of alleles' and then regress to... well you get the point. Its along the lines of 'Well something we don't know about does that', then 'something we don't know about does the previous' and then 'something we don't know about does the latter' and on and on and on. A masked Homunculus argument if I've ever seen one.



Nice try. No, if it fails, it fails. Its time to discard the parts that don't work and start looking for alternatives. Instead of regressing and trying to find another thing that caused an impossibility to happen. It isn't that some parts are unknown. Its that some parts are proven false. its time to get rid of those parts so we can progress the science.



No sorry. Newtons model sufficed because it worked. The evolutionary models as I've shown don't actually work. They don't even come close or have a single instance where they accurately process the data we have.



Sorry no. I've already debunked this. Those articles are extremely old (well in scientific discovery terms) the first one is 2003. It was refuted by another scientists in 2010: "Gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original." It is "insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." --Bozorgmehr, Joseph Esfandiar Hannon. 22 December 2010. Is Gene Duplication a Viable Explanation for the Origination of Biological Information and Complexity? Complexity, published online, DOI 10.1002/cplx.20365, pp. 1-14.

In fact due to the way proteins work even altering a single protein into a neutral state can cause irreparable harm because gene duplication is intentional and has a biological function. For instance Some people digest starches based on the number of duplicate genes for making the enzyme amylase. More copies of the gene mean more enzyme production. We can see this when people have corrupted duplicate enzyme amylase genes which don't allow them to digest starches.

They've also found purposes for transposons. The last decade has provided a growing list of examples of transposon functions, including the 2006 discovery of one that regulates a nerve cell development gene common to all mammals and even the "living fossil" coelacanth. Transposons that regulate the expression rates of plant gene products have also been found. Without proper gene regulation provided by transposons that are already intact and fully integrated into the genome, organisms may die.

Also there is not such a thing as "Junk DNA", they've found out that it serves a purpose and is not leftover neutral mutations. The problem is the scientists just threw it out instead of actually testing to see what it does or what it was for. Another mistake on their part.

Everything you've linked has been debunked to the point that most evolutionists don't even use it anymore...

jesus this thread is actually the dumbest **** I've ever read