Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[supersport]

I didn't say one gene, one trait. I said that genes determine which protein is produced. The same protein can be used for many different purposes, and one gene can encode for multiple proteins. But note what Carrol also states in your quote. "and evolutionary change within this regulatory DNA lead to the diversity of form". Now where have I heard that again? Oh yeah, silly me, that's what I've been telling you for the last few pages. I've made that same statement about four times now? Will you finally accept it now you've quoted it from Carrol in his own words?


Regulating sequences. A little part of the DNA is genes, these genes encode for proteins. When the proteins are produced and in what amount is regulated by the regulatory regions of the DNA, which are before and after the genes. Fifth time I've said this now. Do you understand it this time, or do I have to repeat myself a sixth, seventh and eigth time, supporting my statements with the quotes you supply? I'll do it if necessary, but it is much easier if you just try to understand now.

Did you already study the link I gave you a few pages back on regulatory sequences, or do I have to give it again?


By the constant adaptation of the regulatory sequences of the DNA. Instead of completely new genes, new structures are arrived at by modifying old ones and by modifying the regulatory regions of the gene.


Carrol definitely doesn't think so, and all you have done with the above quotes is support my point. Evolution is driven for a large part by changes in the regulatory sequences. These changes occur in the exact same manner as other evolutionary changes, random mutation followed by selection.

I guess that counts as the sixth time that I've stated that.

first of all this is what you said...
Genes determine which protein is produced, nothing more, nothing less. When and where this protein is produced by the gene determines the function of the protein and thus, the form of the creature. That is where the regulator sequences (the 'genetic switches' are important. Have you read up on them yet, supersport? Or anything else about genetics?

which I proved is false...

Second of all I could care less what Mr. Carrols OPINIONS are....I just am interested only in the facts...and the facts are that the informatin in his book shatters the neo-darwinism....he says it in so many words in the book. He talks about changing textbooks. He also says the following:


The important to point to appreciate from the outset is tht its discovery shttered our previous notions of animal relationships and what made animals different. pg 9 I could give you many more such quotes.



And your guesses of how these tool kits evolved is just that -- a GUESS because you have no proof -- zero, zip, NADA. You've got nothing but blind speculation -- which is the same as the 2nd half of Mr. Carrol's book -- and all of neodarwinism. The fact is you cannot give me ONE piece of proof.

 

[Nooj]

Genes determine which protein is produced, nothing more, nothing less. When and where this protein is produced by the gene determines the function of the protein and thus, the form of the creature. That is where the regulator sequences (the 'genetic switches' are important. Have you read up on them yet, supersport? Or anything else about genetics?

which I proved is false...

You most definitely did not.

 

[Tomk80]

first of all this is what you said...
Genes determine which protein is produced, nothing more, nothing less. When and where this protein is produced by the gene determines the function of the protein and thus, the form of the creature. That is where the regulator sequences (the 'genetic switches' are important. Have you read up on them yet, supersport? Or anything else about genetics?

which I proved is false...

Did you actually read my post? I never said one gene is only responsible for one trait. A gene determines which protein is produced. That is a true statement.

Second of all I could care less what Mr. Carrols OPINIONS are....I just am interested only in the facts...and the facts are that the informatin in his book shatters the neo-darwinism....he says it in so many words in the book. He talks about changing textbooks. He also says the following:

The important to point to appreciate from the outset is tht its discovery shttered our previous notions of animal relationships and what made animals different. pg 9 I could give you many more such quotes.

And he doesn't say that this shatters the modern synthesis. He says (from the other quotes that you gave us) that we should put more emphasis on the regulatory regions of the DNA and that textbooks should reflect this. And that this puts a new perspective on our notions of animal relationships and what makes animals different. That doesn't shatter the modern synthesis in any way, it's a new way of looking at the same theory.

And your guesses of how these tool kits evolved is just that -- a GUESS because you have no proof -- zero, zip, NADA. You've got nothing but blind speculation -- which is the same as the 2nd half of Mr. Carrol's book.

Yes, that is why the genetics fit so well with that 'guess', no?

No, have you in the meantime finally studied up on genetics? It would make the conversation a bit less pointless.

 

[supersport]

You most definitely did not.

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392305

Many of these stretches of DNA, called "ultra-conserved" regions, don't appear to code for protein, so they might have been dismissed as junk if they hadn't shown up in so many different species. And if nature has gone to so much trouble to preserve these ultra-conserved regions over all these years, Haussler reasons, then they must be more important than just "junk." "From what we know about the rate at which DNA changes from generation to generation, the chance of finding even one stretch of DNA in the human genome that is unchanged between humans and mice and rats over these hundred million years is less than one divided by ten followed by 22 zeros. It's a tiny, tiny fraction. It's virtually impossible that this would happen by chance."
This discovery suggests that the genome must be doing something other than coding for proteins, but the purpose of these ultra-conserved regions remains a mystery.

you people are so easy to debate! I'm embarrased for you.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I thought one gene meant one trait


This is a mistake.
Early on in the discovery of DNA the idea was one gene, one protein. Then came the discovery of multiple ways to post-translation modification of the proteins, then pre and post transcription modification of the mRNA and then the understanding that there are multiple frames, start and stopping points possible for the same segment of DNA, giving arise to very different kinds of proteins from the same set of nucleotides.

The understanding has come slowly and not everyone is uptospeed on current understanding(not me for sure, so i am always studying, always welcoming of correction), hence older books (which in this field maybe just a few years old) often represent superseded information.

but the idea of one gene= one trait is wrong from information at least 30 years old.

i suspect that the author actually meant to say:
one gene = one protein, but that is certainly not the same thing.

 

[supersport]

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

95% of DNA does NOT code for protein!! How do you like them apples Tom and everyone else?

 

[Split Rock]

first of all this is what you said...
Genes determine which protein is produced, nothing more, nothing less. When and where this protein is produced by the gene determines the function of the protein and thus, the form of the creature. That is where the regulator sequences (the 'genetic switches' are important. Have you read up on them yet, supersport? Or anything else about genetics?

which I proved is false...

What part of "Genes are built up of DNA, but not all DNA is genes" are you having trouble understanding?

And your guesses of how these tool kits evolved is just that -- a GUESS because you have no proof -- zero, zip, NADA. You've got nothing but blind speculation -- which is the same as the 2nd half of Mr. Carrol's book -- and all of neodarwinism. The fact is you cannot give me ONE piece of proof.

Finally, after 327 posts, supersport asks for the one thing he has wanted all along... PROOF!!!!1111

There is no "proof" in science.. only in mathematics and alcohol.

I am putting you on ignore now, since I only deal with the "Top Dogs," and you are clearly not one of them.

Bye-Bye.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Why are ya'll giving so much attention to this yahoo?

He refutes himself in his own posts most of the time. Clearly does not posess even the most basic understanding of biology or genetics. Cannot comprehend the time scales involved in evolution, and just overall demonstrates his ignorance and inability to think about science in every post.

He is not smart enough for you to be able to show him his errors, and debating him is only feeding his need for attention and validation.

 

[supersport]

This thesis challenges the modern gene-centered view of evolution, and in so doing, drives the final nail in the coffin of the "one-gene-one-phenotype" illusion. The book encourages the view that a unified science of evolution can only be achieved with a thorough integration of development into evolutionary biology. To this end, Mary Jane West-Eberhard's treatise is an enormous success. By showing how environmentally influenced development contributes to the origin of novelty in all organisms, the book provides a key missing component of a modern evolutionary theory that biology has been lacking since Darwin. The book is essential reading for all graduate students, researchers and teachers of biology
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195122356/sr=8-1/qid=1155565211/ref=sr_1_1/104-3637609-5102350?ie=UTF8


It's so fun proving you guys so wrong so quickly!!!

 

[Nooj]

Many of these stretches of DNA, called "ultra-conserved" regions, don't appear to code for protein, so they might have been dismissed as junk if they hadn't shown up in so many different species

Genes determine which protein is produced, nothing more, nothing less

Genes are made up of DNA. But not all DNA is made up of genes.

Therefore, you have not disproven ANYTHING supersport.

 

[Edx]

Why are ya'll giving so much attention to this yahoo?

He refutes himself in his own posts most of the time. Clearly does not posess even the most basic understanding of biology or genetics. Cannot comprehend the time scales involved in evolution, and just overall demonstrates his ignorance and inability to think about science in every post.

He is not smart enough for you to be able to show him his errors, and debating him is only feeding his need for attention and validation.

Its his outstanding confidence in his ignorence that annoys people.

 

[notto]

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

95% of DNA does NOT code for protein!! How do you like them apples Tom and everyone else?

You do understand that this fact is taught in just about every college level biology or genetics class, right?

That you state it like it is some be revelation shows that you really don't understand the topic very well.

'One Gene One Trait' hasn't been accepted for quite some time. Something else that is taught in just about every college level biology or genetics class.

You are caught in some kind of late 60's, early 70's time warp or something.

 

[TheBear]

It's amazing how many times you guys are proven wrong on here. It's laughable.

you people are so easy to debate.

You know, if you just dropped this smug and immature attitude towards those who disagree with you, you'd be recieved better by others. Is it possible for you to just state what you believe and address the points, without the ad hominem "you guys" zingers?

Try it.

 

[TheBear]

How do you like them apples Tom and everyone else?

What the hell are we dealing with here, a 10 year old?

 

[Nooj]

This thesis challenges the modern gene-centered view of evolution, and in so doing, drives the final nail in the coffin of the "one-gene-one-phenotype" illusion. The book encourages the view that a unified science of evolution can only be achieved with a thorough integration of development into evolutionary biology. To this end, Mary Jane West-Eberhard's treatise is an enormous success. By showing how environmentally influenced development contributes to the origin of novelty in all organisms, the book provides a key missing component of a modern evolutionary theory that biology has been lacking since Darwin. The book is essential reading for all graduate students, researchers and teachers of biology

That illusion was dispelled decades ago. It has no relevance whatsoever to evolution. Congratulations, you've caught up with the 21st century.

And one-gene-one-phenotype? One gene influencing the entire physical outcome of an organism? So a gene coding for insulin will also influence your entire body?

I thought phenotype referred to the entire body? Maybe he means one-gene-one-trait?

 

[supersport]

Genes are made up of DNA. But not all DNA is made up of genes.

Therefore, you have not disproven ANYTHING supersport.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene03.html

well then decipher this then

The DNA in each chromosome constitutes many genes

 

[Tomk80]

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

95% of DNA does NOT code for protein!! How do you like them apples Tom and everyone else?

Yes, I already acknowledged that some posts ago. Why don't you give me the post number, to show that you actually read my posts?

 

[supersport]

Yes, I already acknowledged that some posts ago. Why don't you give me the post number, to show that you actually read my posts?

all you acknowledge was that I was an idiot for not knowing that all genes code for proteins.

But actually...what is it??? 5%? LOL!

 

[Nooj]

well then decipher this then

The DNA in each chromosome constitutes many genes

Sweet Red Rock Deli Soy Honey Chips.

Let me put it into a few simple words.

The DNA making up the chromosomes are made up of many genes that code for proteins, as well as many that don't.

DNA is not the same thing as genes.

 

[supersport]

Sweet Red Rock Deli Soy Honey Chips.

Let me put it into a few simple words.

The DNA making up the chromosomes are made up of many genes that code for proteins, as well as many that don't.

DNA is not the same thing as genes.

Here's what he said:

Genes determine which protein is produced, nothing more, nothing less