Jump to content


Photo

A Creationism Prediction Being Fullfilled


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#41 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 09 December 2008 - 01:00 AM

Because I dont have to validate the hýpothesis.It´s his homework.

View Post


If you make a claim, you have to support it.

You made the claim that the hypothesis provided by the author is invalid. Now I need you to support it.

#42 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 09 December 2008 - 03:01 AM

If you make a claim, you have to support it.

You made the claim that the hypothesis provided by the author is invalid. Now I need you to support it.

View Post


I didnt say it´s invalid.I said that while he does not prove it , it´s not a valid option.

#43 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:16 PM

I didnt say it´s invalid.I said that while he does not prove it , it´s not a valid option.

View Post


Do you even know what a hypothesis is?

A hypothesis is a poposed theory, that is not yet supported by evidence. There is nothing wrong with discovering a problem, and then proposing possible solutions to a problem. This is what the author did.

He describes an interesting problem (using science), and then proposes a solution to this problem in the form of a hypothesis. Remember that his article is not about epistasis, so any detailed discussion on that topic would only clutter up his article. He simple states that epistasis is a possible solution to the problem. And it is.

What I don't understand is why you think this is wrong. In any given field (engineering, electronics, chemistry, medicine, mathematics) there will be unsolved problems, and there at any time there might be people working on them, or there might not be. The existence of a problem in a field does not invalidate that field.

The only way to invalidate a scientific thoery is by replacing it with something that WORKS BETTER. Now, it might be that the mutation fixation problem is catastrophic for the theory of evolution as it stands. But before you don't replace the theory of evolution with something that works BETTER, it will remain.

Scientists are doing research on epistasis, so why don't you do what I am doing, and wait for the results?

#44 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 10 December 2008 - 01:34 AM

Do you even know what a hypothesis is?

A hypothesis is a poposed theory, that is not yet supported by evidence. There is nothing wrong with discovering a problem, and then proposing possible solutions to a problem. This is what the author did.

He describes an interesting problem (using science), and then proposes a solution to this problem in the form of a hypothesis. Remember that his article is not about epistasis, so any detailed discussion on that topic would only clutter up his article. He simple states that epistasis is a possible solution to the problem. And it is.

What I don't understand is why you think this is wrong. In any given field (engineering, electronics, chemistry, medicine, mathematics) there will be unsolved problems, and there at any time there might be people working on them, or there might not be. The existence of a problem in a field does not invalidate that field.

The only way to invalidate a scientific thoery is by replacing it with something that WORKS BETTER. Now, it might be that the mutation fixation problem is catastrophic for the theory of evolution as it stands. But before you don't replace the theory of evolution with something that works BETTER, it will remain.

Scientists are doing research on epistasis, so why don't you do what I am doing, and wait for the results?

View Post


If something is wrong, it´s wrong.I dont have to accept it because I dont know what is the answer.Instead of accepting a wrong theory because I dont know the answer, I prefer to say that I dont know the answer.The first step to find the right answer is to admit that the present answer is wrong.

I´m not invalidating the field, I´m invalidating macro-evolution, because it has been falsified.

I´m waiting for people who are trying to prove the existence of gnomos, until that happens I do not consider their existence.While scientists do not prove epistasis, it´s only a just so explanation to save evolution theory.

#45 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 10 December 2008 - 11:25 PM

If something is wrong, it´s wrong.I dont have to accept it because I dont know what is the answer.Instead of accepting a wrong theory because I dont know the answer, I prefer to say that I dont know the answer.The first step to find the right answer is to admit that the present answer is wrong.


You are more than welcome to accept, or not accept anything you like. If you don't want to accept the thoery of evolution as the best scientific explanation we have at the moment, feel free.

But the moment you make a claim, do not be surprised when people ask you to support it. If you are unwilling to support your claims, then don't make them. Any claim you make that you are unable to support, is nothing more that hot air.

Now, since you STILL have not answered the question, I will repeat it:

Why do you think the epistasis hypothesis is not a valid hypothesis? There is only one way to invalidate or validate any hypothesis, and that is through evidence. What evidence did you consult to reach the conclusion that the hypothesis (epistasis) the author proposed is invalid?


I´m not invalidating the field, I´m invalidating macro-evolution, because it has been falsified.


So, now that you have destroyed evolution, what will you replace it with? Remember that whatever you replace it with must do a BETTER job than the thoery being replaced.

I´m waiting for people who are trying to prove the existence of gnomos, until that happens I do not consider their existence.While scientists do not prove epistasis, it´s only a just so explanation to save evolution theory.

View Post


Hold on, are you saying that the interaction between genes is comparable to garden gnomes? I hope not, that would be rediculous.

On the one hand you have something observable, that has been observed. Remember, the existance of epistasis is not questioned, weather it solves the problem in this thread is. Are you seriously contending that epistasis does not exist?

#46 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 December 2008 - 01:05 AM

More junk DNA found to be functional.

'Junk' DNA Proves Functional; Helps Explain Human Differences From Other Species
ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2008) — In a paper published in Genome Research on Nov. 4, scientists at the Genome Institute of Singapore (GIS) report that what was previously believed to be "junk" DNA is one of the important ingredients distinguishing humans from other species.


More than 50 percent of human DNA has been referred to as "junk" because it consists of copies of nearly identical sequences. A major source of these repeats is internal viruses that have inserted themselves throughout the genome at various times during mammalian evolution.

Using the latest sequencing technologies, GIS researchers showed that many transcription factors, the master proteins that control the expression of other genes, bind specific repeat elements. The researchers showed that from 18 to 33% of the binding sites of five key transcription factors with important roles in cancer and stem cell biology are embedded in distinctive repeat families.

Over evolutionary time, these repeats were dispersed within different species, creating new regulatory sites throughout these genomes. Thus, the set of genes controlled by these transcription factors is likely to significantly differ from species to species and may be a major driver for evolution.

This research also shows that these repeats are anything but "junk DNA," since they provide a great source of evolutionary variability and might hold the key to some of the important physical differences that distinguish humans from all other species.

The GIS study also highlighted the functional importance of portions of the genome that are rich in repetitive sequences.

"Because a lot of the biomedical research use model organisms such as mice and primates, it is important to have a detailed understanding of the differences between these model organisms and humans in order to explain our findings," said Guillaume Bourque, Ph.D., GIS Senior Group Leader and lead author of the Genome Research paper.

"Our research findings imply that these surveys must also include repeats, as they are likely to be the source of important differences between model organisms and humans," added Dr. Bourque. "The better our understanding of the particularities of the human genome, the better our understanding will be of diseases and their treatments."

"The findings by Dr. Bourque and his colleagues at the GIS are very exciting and represent what may be one of the major discoveries in the biology of evolution and gene regulation of the decade," said Raymond White, Ph.D., Rudi Schmid Distinguished Professor at the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and chair of the GIS Scientific Advisory Board.

"We have suspected for some time that one of the major ways species differ from one another – for instance, why rats differ from monkeys – is in the regulation of the expression of their genes: where are the genes expressed in the body, when during development, and how much do they respond to environmental stimuli," he added.

"What the researchers have demonstrated is that DNA segments carrying binding sites for regulatory proteins can, at times, be explosively distributed to new sites around the genome, possibly altering the activities of genes near where they locate. The means of distribution seem to be a class of genetic components called 'transposable elements' that are able to jump from one site to another at certain times in the history of the organism. The families of these transposable elements vary from species to species, as do the distributed DNA segments which bind the regulatory proteins."

Dr. White also added, "This hypothesis for formation of new species through episodic distributions of families of gene regulatory DNA sequences is a powerful one that will now guide a wealth of experiments to determine the functional relationships of these regulatory DNA sequences to the genes that are near their landing sites. I anticipate that as our knowledge of these events grows, we will begin to understand much more how and why the rat differs so dramatically from the monkey, even though they share essentially the same complement of genes and proteins."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal reference:

Bourque et al. Evolution of the mammalian transcription factor binding repertoire via transposable elements. Genome Research, 2008; 18: 1752-1762 DOI: 10.1101/gr.080663.108

#47 Darwinist Nemesis

Darwinist Nemesis

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Boston

Posted 26 December 2008 - 07:13 PM

Right - it is hard because you need to provide evidence.  Scientist wanted to test their theory about what junk DNA is by removing it, reshuffling it, and etc and found no change to the organism.  How would you have them test that?  What other method exists?  Scientists have strong evidence that much of DNA has no function.


"Junk" DNA was one of the Darwino-Atheists' perceived trump cards against Intelligent Design.

"Your DNA consists largely of millions of defunct copies of parasitic DNA. The inescapable conclusion is that if life was designed, the designer was lazy, stupid and cruel."

Michael Le Page, writing his "Guide to Evolution" in the NEW SCIENTIST, 19 April 2008.

It just goes to show that the evolutionists will stop at nothing to use anything to deceive the public from the real inescapable conclusion: lnamely that life has been intelligently designed and created.

#48 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 13 March 2009 - 11:07 AM

Chromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals

There is growing recognition that mammalian cells produce many thousands of large intergenic transcripts1, 2, 3, 4. However, the functional significance of these transcripts has been particularly controversial. Although there are some well-characterized examples, most (>95%) show little evidence of evolutionary conservation and have been suggested to represent transcriptional noise5, 6. Here we report a new approach to identifying large non-coding RNAs using chromatin-state maps to discover discrete transcriptional units intervening known protein-coding loci. Our approach identified 1,600 large multi-exonic RNAs across four mouse cell types. In sharp contrast to previous collections, these large intervening non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs) show strong purifying selection in their genomic loci, exonic sequences and promoter regions, with greater than 95% showing clear evolutionary conservation. We also developed a functional genomics approach that assigns putative functions to each lincRNA, demonstrating a diverse range of roles for lincRNAs in processes from embryonic stem cell pluripotency to cell proliferation. We obtained independent functional validation for the predictions for over 100 lincRNAs, using cell-based assays. In particular, we demonstrate that specific lincRNAs are transcriptionally regulated by key transcription factors in these processes such as p53, NFB, Sox2, Oct4 (also known as Pou5f1) and Nanog. Together, these results define a unique collection of functional lincRNAs that are highly conserved and implicated in diverse biological processes.

Nature

#49 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:30 AM

Chromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals

There is growing recognition that mammalian cells produce many thousands of large intergenic transcripts1, 2, 3, 4. However, the functional significance of these transcripts has been particularly controversial. Although there are some well-characterized examples, most (>95%) show little evidence of evolutionary conservation and have been suggested to represent transcriptional noise5, 6. Here we report a new approach to identifying large non-coding RNAs using chromatin-state maps to discover discrete transcriptional units intervening known protein-coding loci. Our approach identified 1,600 large multi-exonic RNAs across four mouse cell types. In sharp contrast to previous collections, these large intervening non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs) show strong purifying selection in their genomic loci, exonic sequences and promoter regions, with greater than 95% showing clear evolutionary conservation. We also developed a functional genomics approach that assigns putative functions to each lincRNA, demonstrating a diverse range of roles for lincRNAs in processes from embryonic stem cell pluripotency to cell proliferation. We obtained independent functional validation for the predictions for over 100 lincRNAs, using cell-based assays. In particular, we demonstrate that specific lincRNAs are transcriptionally regulated by key transcription factors in these processes such as p53, NFB, Sox2, Oct4 (also known as Pou5f1) and Nanog. Together, these results define a unique collection of functional lincRNAs that are highly conserved and implicated in diverse biological processes.

Nature

View Post


Oh my! More shifting sands. Now how do we incorporate this new data into our materialistic theory??? Think people Think! :angry: :huh:

Of cource evolution must evolve once again.

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 March 2009 - 06:27 AM

Oh my!  More shifting sands.  Now how do we incorporate this new data into our materialistic theory???  Think people Think! :unsure:  :unsure:

Of cource evolution must evolve once again.

View Post

Hi performadge, did you see this thread yet?

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1950

#51 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 16 March 2009 - 07:46 AM

Oh my!  More shifting sands.  Now how do we incorporate this new data into our materialistic theory???  Think people Think! :unsure:  :unsure:

Of cource evolution must evolve once again.

View Post


Scientists incorporate new data into theories as it becomes available performedge. If they didn't we'd still be stuck with only four elements and the physics of the ancient Greeks.

#52 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:36 AM

Scientists incorporate new data into theories as it becomes available performedge.  If they didn't we'd still be stuck with only four elements and the physics of the ancient Greeks.

View Post

If the theories contained truth from the beginning, the wouldn't need to change. They'd always be correct no matter how much new data was obtained.

In math there are curves which approach numbers (usually one or zero) closely, but never quite get there. The world's idea of "science" can (at best) be likened to these curves.

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:56 AM

If the theories contained truth from the beginning, the wouldn't need to change. They'd always be correct no matter how much new data was obtained.

View Post

Man, you just described scripture!

#54 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 June 2009 - 09:58 AM

New research has confirmed even more junk DNA has a function.

ScienceDaily (May 30, 2009) — Researchers at K.U. Leuven and Harvard University show that stretches of DNA previously believed to be useless 'junk' DNA play a vital role in the evolution of our genome. They found that unstable pieces of junk DNA help tuning gene activity and enable organisms to quickly adapt to changes in their environments. The results will be published in the journal Science.


Junk DNA

"Most people do not realize that all our genes only comprise about 3% of the total human genome. The rest is basically one large black box," says Kevin Verstrepen, heading the research team. "Why do we have this DNA, what is it doing?"

Scientists used to believe that most of the DNA outside of genes, the so-called non-coding DNA, is useless trash that has sneaked into our genome and refuses to leave. One commonly known example of such 'junk DNA' are the so-called tandem repeats, short stretches of DNA that are repeated head-to-tail. "At first sight, it may seem unlikely that this stutter-DNA has any biological function," says Marcelo Vinces, one of the lead authors on the paper. "On the other hand, it seems hard to believe that nature would foster such a wasteful system."

Unstable repeats

The international team of scientists found that stretches of tandem repeats influence the activity of neighboring genes. The repeats determine how tightly the local DNA is wrapped around specific proteins called 'nucleosomes', and this packaging structure dictates to what extent genes can be activated. Interestingly, tandem repeats are very unstable -- the number of repeats changes frequently when the DNA is copied. These changes affect the local DNA packaging, which in turn alters gene activity. In this way, unstable junk DNA allows fast shifts in gene activity, which may allow organisms to tune the activity of genes to match changing environments -- a vital principle for survival in the endless evolutionary race.

Evolution in test tubes

To further test their theory, the researchers conducted a complex experiment aimed at mimicking biological evolution, using yeast cells as Darwinian guinea pigs. Their results show that when a repeat is present near a gene, it is possible to select yeast mutants that show vastly increased activity of this gene. However, when the repeat region was removed, this fast evolution was impossible. "If this was the real world," the researchers say, "only cells with the repeats would be able to swiftly adapt to changes, thereby beating their repeat-less counterparts in the game of evolution. Their junk DNA saved their lives."

The research has been funded by Human Frontier Science Program, Fund for Scientific Research Flanders, NIH, K.U. Leuven and VIB (the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology).


http://www.scienceda...90528203730.htm - 50k -

#55 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 June 2009 - 07:05 PM

So, The bigger the coding region the bigger the value of U.

I think it is useful to look at the impact of junk DNA in a different fashion.
Assume two similar genomes, each with the same length of coding and non-coding regulating DNA. With the same intrinsic mutation rate, both genomes will generate the same number of deleterious mutations/generation.
Now consider the effect of adding a lot of true junk DNA to one genome. Mutations to this DNA will not produce any deleterious effect on the organism.

However, there is a possibility that mutation to this junk DNA will have beneficial effects. Some mutations will inevitably create new 'start' codons, so that the downstream sequence can be copied to RNA and then protein. Expression of this protein is likely to be low, because of absence of promoter sequences. However, if the result is an improvement, then natural selection will tend to preserve this mutation and eventually other random change produces an effective promoter region etc.
In the absence of this 'resuscitation', mutations in the junk DNA will keep modifying sequences until something good happens.

I do not know whether anyone has figured out how much this resuscitation of junk DNA could contribute to the creation of beneficial mutations.

#56 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 06 June 2009 - 09:05 PM

Now consider the effect of adding a lot of true junk DNA to one genome.  Mutations to this DNA will not produce any deleterious effect on the organism.

However, there is a possibility that mutation to this junk DNA will have beneficial effects.  Some mutations will inevitably create new 'start' codons, so that the downstream sequence can be copied to RNA and then protein.  Expression of this protein is likely to be low, because of absence of promoter sequences.  However, if the result is an improvement, then natural selection will tend to preserve this mutation and eventually other random change produces an effective promoter region etc.


Hi Kieth,

If I understand this hypothesis correctly then junk DNA can be used as a storage bin of random mutations until that one beneficial mutation occurs. Since the junk DNA isn't used, deleterious mutations will not effect the organism. However, when the beneficial mutation occurs than it will be eventually be selected by natural selection.

This hypothesis assumes that only positive mutations will be passed on. What happens is that the gene or junk DNA is selected as whole unit rather than as one individual beneficial mutation. This is called Muller’s Ratchet” (named after another population geneticist). Even if a gene with a beneficial mutation is selected for, it will carry many, many more deleterious mutations. This inevitably causes genetic entropy, not an increase in information or complexity.

So lets be generous and say the deleterious mutation rate is 10,000 more frequent than a beneficial mutation rate. Then genetic drift is a steeply negative not positive.

See the thread about J.C. Sanford's book "Genetic Entropy"link.

Other problems:

1. How will the junk DNA know if a mutation is positive or negative? It doesn't.
2. How does natural selection work in Junk DNA? Natural Selection only occurs if mutation is selected and competes against something.

#57 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 June 2009 - 03:23 PM

If I understand this hypothesis correctly then junk DNA can be used as a storage bin of random mutations until that one beneficial mutation occurs.  Since the junk DNA isn't used, deleterious mutations will not effect the organism.  However, when the beneficial mutation occurs than it will be eventually be selected by natural selection.

What your summary misses is that all mutations accumulate in the junk DNA. There is no distinction between favorable, neutral or deleterious mutations because nothing is expressed.
What will inevitably happen is that there will occasionally be a mutation which produces a start codon, activating the entire sequence from the start position to the downstream stop codon.
The protein product either has some beneficial effect, or has no effect or some adverse effect. If found beneficial the entire gene has an opportunity to spread to the entire population. If deleterious, then natural selection will remove this variation.
You are quite correct to say that the gene will be selected as a unit. With this process it is quite misleading to categorize the individual mutations to the junk DNA as either advantageous or detrimental.
What would certainly be true is that the sequence for this new gene is likely to be far from optimal. This inevitably means that there is substantial room for further improvement and the probability that for a favorable mutation is much higher than for a change in a gene which is already close to its optimum sequence.

I think your conclusion that the human genome is rapidly deteriorating is one of the undesirable side effects of reading creationist literature.

1. How will the junk DNA know if a mutation is positive or negative?  It doesn't.
2.  How does natural selection work in Junk DNA?  Natural Selection only occurs if mutation is selected and competes against something.

I am surprised at these two questions. I was assuming that you understood much more about natural selection.
The junk DNA does not have to know anything!!!!!!
Neither does the organism carrying the reactivated piece of junk DNA or the other organisms which do not have the change.
Natural selection works as it always does. If the individual carrying the reactivated gene thrives and reproduces better than the rest of the population, then the mutation has good prospects of being fixed in the population. If not or if unlucky, it will go extinct. However, a similar reactivated gene may have better luck and over the long term it pays to back the potential winners.
In all such cases, the individuals carrying the mutation are competing with other individuals in the population which do not carry that mutation.
If you are concerned about deleterious mutations, remember that all other members in the population also carry adverse mutations.

#58 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 07 June 2009 - 04:16 PM

I think your conclusion that the human genome is rapidly deteriorating is one of the undesirable side effects of reading creationist literature.


:)

I am surprised at these two questions.  I was assuming that you understood much more about natural selection.
The junk DNA does not have to know anything!!!!!!
Neither does the organism carrying the reactivated piece of junk DNA or the other organisms which do not have the change.
Natural selection works as it always does.  If the individual carrying the reactivated gene thrives and reproduces better than the rest of the population, then the mutation has good prospects of being fixed in the population.  If not or if unlucky, it will go extinct.  However, a similar reactivated gene may have better luck and over the long term it pays to back the potential winners.
In all such cases, the individuals carrying the mutation are competing with other individuals in the population which do not carry that mutation. 
If you are concerned about deleterious mutations, remember that all other members in the population also carry adverse mutations.

View Post



Earlier you made this statement which shows you understood my questions!!!

In junk DNA there is no distinction between favorable, neutral or deleterious mutations because nothing is expressed.


If junk DNA means unused DNA that the mutations are never expressed in real life situations. Natural Selection has no power with unused DNA.

If the DNA becomes expressed somehow than the whole DNA segment is expressed. Natural selection filters the whole gene, or DNA segment, with all its mutations. Since the junk DNA segment has been collecting mutations, it is safe to say it built up many more negative mutations than positive mutations Natural Selection will be harsher with dealing with multiple mutations than dealing with one mutation at a time.

#59 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 June 2009 - 07:11 PM

If the DNA becomes expressed somehow than the whole DNA segment is expressed. Natural selection filters the whole gene, or DNA segment, with all its mutations. Since the junk DNA segment has been collecting mutations, it is safe to say it built up many more negative mutations than positive mutations Natural Selection will be harsher with dealing with multiple mutations than dealing with one mutation at a time.

The part of your statement which I think is correct is in bold.
The remainder is incorrect.
The sequence of the reactivated gene has not been optimized to be efficient at carrying out any particular reaction. There might be several different reactions for which the resulting protein could try out for.
In this situation of ignorance it is quite inappropriate to score the nucleotide sequence as containing a large number of deleterious nucleotides with a very few being beneficial. I agree that your scoring system could be applied relative to the gene's original function before it became a pseudogene

For an actual experiment where favorable mutations could be counted, see:-
http://www.pnas.org/.../98/3/1113.full
Mutations observed were most probably in the active genes and did not involve reactivating pseudogenes.

#60 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 07 June 2009 - 09:23 PM

The part of your statement which I think is correct is in bold.
The remainder is incorrect.
The sequence of the reactivated gene has not been optimized to be efficient at carrying out any particular reaction.  There might be several different reactions for which the resulting protein could try out for.
In this situation of ignorance it is quite inappropriate to score the nucleotide sequence as containing a large number of deleterious nucleotides with a very few being beneficial.  I agree that your scoring system could be applied relative to the gene's original function before it became a pseudogene

For an actual experiment where favorable mutations could be counted, see:-
http://www.pnas.org/.../98/3/1113.full
Mutations observed were most probably in the active genes and did not involve reactivating pseudogenes.

View Post


Is there any example of a junk DNA successfully reconnecting itself to the exact right place in the DNA and create something useful. ANSWER -NO.

All you stated is pure conjecture.

The article you posted is grossly out of date. Here are two more recent articles. ( this will be 2 postings)

The contribution of epistasis to the architecture of fitness in an RNA virus

This study is showing the effects of multiple independent (non-allelic) mutations on each other (epistasis), rather than the effects of single mutations alone. The reactions can work together (synergistic) or against each other (antagonistic) Epistasis is defined as “any interaction of nonallelic genes, especially the suppression by one gene of the effect of a nonallelic gene.”

How did the experiment go:

Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses.  To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined.  Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis.  Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter.  In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created.  In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.


Indeed, when epistasis is decompensatory, both beneficial alleles involved in the interaction cannot spread to fixation in the population, because the double mutant is less fit than each single mutant.


This drastically undercuts any hope for evolutionary progress. Beneficial mutations are “scarce” to begin with, but more is not better – it’s worse. Like adding hot sauce to ice cream, the benefits of each counteract one another when combined.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users