I understand your paraphrasing of my position and it is technically correct. Yet my consensus about an organism evolving into an ecological niche yet retaining the same genetic structure or having reduced complexity is completely different to evolutionist claims of evolution being the source of all complex life-forms. So you could say that I'm completely opposed to the main assumption of evolution, the evolving of complex life-forms. Observed evolution is micro-evolution and devolving into less complex life-forms (reduced gene functionality) to suit environmental ecological conditions. This flies in the face of the core claim of evolution of being the source for all complex life-forms.

All the examples listed of observed evolution in this thread do not support evolution's core assumption.

Perhaps you should have kept reading to the end. The Maize example had a 50% increase in genome size over the period given and the evolutionary benefits were discussed.

It would appear you missed the point of the whole article. Evolutionary pressures can cause loss or increase in genome size depending upon evolutionary pressures. Needed traits plays an important role in that if a trait is needed to fill a niche that required a longer gene sequence, a longer gene sequence is what will evolve.

Once again you play the role of "whatever is presented backs you up 100% and you understand science better than anyone else.

However, on one point you are absolutely correct. What this whole article has to do with extra beneficial (non-viral) coding genes is beyond you.


The maize did not have beneficial coding genes, merely beneficial duplications of non-coding genes, a concept I've been mentioning during this thread.

Let me summarise that article then:

Page 1 shows that scientists have identified that genome size increases. they found that this normally relates to NON-CODING genes (that's been my consistent point in this thread).

"Research into these differences soon revealed that in many organisms much of the DNA is noncoding and often repetitive. This provided a solution to the original paradox in that it showed that apparently simple organisms probably do have fewer ESSENTIAL genes than more complex organisms, even though they sometimes have larger genomes because of larger amounts of noncoding DNA."

The author then gives two common views on these duplicate non-coding genes:
A) they are Adaptive DNA, they assist and have a function even though they are non-active duplicates.
B) they are junk DNA with no value but accumulate too fast to de-select

The author proposes his view on page 2:
C) The extra DNA could have some value, but if it doesn't have value it normally will not be de-selected by nature because it causes little damage. Only when the accumulations of duplicated genes start to cause significant fitness damage will de-selection occur through the natural processes of natural selection. The author then advocates studying each case to see what selection pressures occurred in that particular case.

He then looks into different mutations, transposable elements (order change of base-pairs within a gene), deletions/insertions. The only relevant portion is insertions, but he lists these as pseudogenes or non-coding genes (inactive).

I found the whole article well written , informative, and confirming everything I have been saying. The number of beneficial coding genes does not increase. there can be a net decrease of these through deletions, but insertions are not protein-coding (they do not add useful genetic information to the complexity of the organism)

What this whole article has to do with extra beneficial (non-viral) coding genes is beyond me??

I actually have no problem with the creation of new species (macro-evolution) through evolutionary processes. I just feel this cannot explain the increased complexity found in organs and limbs, brains etc, whereby bacteria can become humans. I am eagerly awaiting more genome sequencing studies, because I personally feel there will be some shockers for creationists who have a limited view of the ability for life to rapidly evolve. If you look at the diversity found in Australia and Madagascar, both countries I'm sure will reveal extreme diversity from common ancestors. There is some indication of "bottleneck" events of each species, yet they have not confirmed this between species yet. I believe in limited macro-evolution, but I do thoroughly believe in it.



Thanks for the compliment and the scientific approach, appreciated :)
There are not just a few remaining unknowns , molecular biology is a new field full of exciting truths to be discovered.

I said nothing like that, which shows your character :) You shouldn't get so nasty, its just a discussion :)

I said Billyclub shouldn't post something he does not understand. I feel that is logical and fair enough. If he does understand it, he could have the courtesy to point out where it contradicts my position. I feel it lacks manners to indicate that I must read this long article that supposedly disproves my position without even pointing out how or why. When I do point out how or why any links fail to disprove my position, I'm accused of ignoring science. I'm doing the opposite, I'm reading what is said, and it all shows that there is not one example of an extra beneficial (non-viral) coding gene created by nature.

I did read parts of the article and did find it a good read. I am always learning new information about the subject nearly every day.

It just isn't relevant to our "extra beneficial coding gene" debate as far as I can see, I haven't got the time to read everything posted unless the poster has the courtesy to point out the relevant section, then I will always read that detail. Because bbc did not highlight the relevant section and yet claims the article has some point, seems to indicate he is battling to find the relevance himself. He is welcome to point out the relevant section, but I doubt a debate about the usefulness of duplications will be relevant to adding an extra coding beneficial gene to the genome.(non-viral)

ERV's are always recognisable as ERV's. They remain distinctive as additional insertions no matter how long they have been part of the genome. That is why for a couple of pages I was saying that evolution has to explain extra "non-viral" genes, it just becomes difficult for me to keep typing out "extra functional active beneficial non-viral protein coding genes" every time we are discussing these issues. Its not like the virus is ever absorbed into the genome in such a manner as to become indistinguishable from other coding genes, they are always recognised as separate insertions. If somehow they could adapt into normal genes they then could explain how humans came from bacteria.

Well I was wondering when someone was going to bring up this point, which is very valid to the current debate. Yes genetic modifications do often involve insertions of genes to the genome. This does involve some improvements to the "food" produced. But as you know, we are uncertain whether we will have damaging side-effects by eating this genetically altered food.

Regarding this being the solution to the evolutionist's claims , it would not meet the criteria on 2 grounds:
1) It is an artificial process to insert a new string of genes into a plant's genome, we are looking for natural processes.
2) The extra genes may not be beneficial to the plant. These plants are designed for food and farming purposes, they are highly unlikely to have more hardiness if left alone in nature. Some of them lack seeds, impossible for them to reproduce in nature. It would be interesting to see if they can create more hardy plants, I'm sure they would be able to, but that's not their focus

;) you should stop posting links that you don't understand , its very embarassing for others to read.

Well if you did not have Darwin creating an instantly acceptable worldwide theory of macro-evolution based on his well written observations of micro-evolution and the fossil record, we would be looking at the current evidence with more of an open mind. Neither instinctive logic nor highly detailed analysis would assume evolution from looking at current genome sequencing. The molecular biological evidence, if you are unbiased, points to the sudden appearance of a string of coded genes, followed by deteriation. That is all the evidence is showing, with a few minor improvements among many many damaging mutations. But even the improvements show lessening complexity over time, dead and damaged genes with some beneficial trade-off to the loss of functionality. Unclouded by Darwin, the facts point to devolution, the ability of natural selection to filter out these damaging mutations faster than they are being created is not observed. There is net damage occurring, not net improvements. There is loss of functionality to fill ecological gaps, not increased functionality. Natural selection occurs, true, its a natural process, so some aspects of evolution are observed, but not enough to create an organism with the increased functionality of more coding genes. Some new species can be created through observed processes, true, but generally the chromosomal pattern of coding genes remains consistent.

The fossil record, without evolutionary bias, actually supports neither. It seems to indicate sudden insertions of new fauna/flora over time with micro-evolution causing extra diversity. The more living fossils found, the more likely one sudden insertion of flora and fauna appears.

No they don't have to happen simultaneously. If a previously non-coding region becomes a coding region in a manner beneficial to the organism, this would certainly make your point. But a duplication resulting in extra non-coding genes, plus some mutated coding genes that have added some function would not make your point.

The problem is that the human genome is actually showing MORE unique new functional "words" than bacteria, not just better or changed words, so the bigger genome with more non-coding regions and some transformed genes would not explain humans, which have more functional coding genes than bacteria.

Evolutionists are crediting evolution with the appearance of the extra beneficial functional genes, when in reality these non-coding regions of the genome do not activate in a beneficial manner. If they ever activate its in a highly damaging manner (Down's syndrome).

Misrepresentation! lol I have never denied that duplications can occur. I have denied that duplications can cause active AND beneficial genes. What's the use of "junk DNA", extra inactive chromosomes and genes, this will not create a human from bacteria, you need that 1000 gene organism to start gaining extra functions (via active beneficial genes) over time to become a human.

"LIKELY protein-coding abilities" You getting close ;)

That was a very good example of what I'm looking for, however so far it just looks like a mutated non-coding gene. Unique because it has been damaged. Even if it is proven to be a coding region, these activated duplications are always damaging, not beneficial. For example, Downs Syndrome involves extra, yet protein-coding genes, so these do exist. However not beneficially.

I would say that "yat" to "cat" is a changed word in the sentence, not a new word. Sorry the semantics of this thread are confusing people and this was probably my fault, but you are right, I'm referring to an EXTRA gene as an added gene. I'm looking for examples of extra genes, where say a 22000 gene organism becomes a 22001 gene organism, the extra gene being a coding active gene with a unique function. Evolution requires this process.

Sorry I didn't read your post clearly, you were referring to the activating of previously inactive non-coding genes, and yet I thought you meant the re-activation or changing of already active genes. Apology for not reading properly :)

To answer your question, the process you are describing is unlikely because:
1) I do not see how a duplicate gene would be activated with a new function if its dormant with a previous function.
Each unique functional coding gene is a unique combination of about 100 000 base pairs depending on the organism and the gene, how does nature set up that gene with a new unique function? By what process?
2) This activating of non-coding genes into new functional genes is not observed.

Hi

I don't know if this was meant for me, but I don't want to be told later in the thread that I don't face the evidence put forward. If you can understand I am dealing with 5 seperate people posting links for me to look at, could you kindly post the relevant portion or refer me to a relevant paragraph in this link, if it was meant for me.

On first glance a large portion of the article was referring to the merits of duplications. I personally believe non-coding regions do have benefit and cause selective pressure, the writer of the article seems to think the only selective pressure is the limit to which the organism can cope with the duplications. I believe duplications protect an organism from mutation through in a sense being a "back-up". This is why the E coli fared better with a cloned resistance gene when confronted with a hostile environment. And so I believe duplications via mutatons can be beneficial and naturally selected to become dominant in an organism.

This is logical to me, and I agree this is what is currently being observed. I would rather call this a changed gene than a new gene, but for semantic reasons I don't mind you calling this a new gene. Yet a new gene coming from a previous gene, does not explain evolution, where a single gene organism can one day become 1000 gene bacteria. And then eventually become a 10000 gene insect. And eventually become a 22000 gene human. This involves MORE active unique beneficial genes, not changed genes or less genes. This process of useful functional genes being added to the genome is just an interesting theory, that unfortunately has been adopted as fact by the scientific community.







Yes I completely agree with you. This is how beneficial mutations are occurring, and are observed. But this is devolving, beneficial reduced complexity over time causing selective pressure resulting in better adaptation to modern environments.

You ask about the benefits of genetic build-up, organisms have unique genes with specific functions that according to evolution did not exist in bacteria and then evolved. I'm saying this is not observed, this adding of genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gene_Fusion_Types.png

Maybe you misunderstand the meaning of the word "fusion". Its two genes joining. It sorta sounds like a gene from the outside joins an organism, making one extra gene, but that is not what gene fusion means. Instead what it really is , is two genes within the organism joining together, making one "hybrid" gene. It could be seen as a gene reduction process, not a gene adding process.

This does not assist with explaining evolution of a single gene organism becoming 2 genes then 3 genes (then 1000 genes - bacteria) then 21999 genes then 22000 genes to become a human.

What process would add those useful unique protein-coding genes?

The "superbug".

Another useless example that is missing the entire point. There is no added gene in the superbug, just natural selection of the bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

I have no problem with "evolving", the natural selection of the fittest.

I have a problem with a single gene organism becoming 2 genes, then 3 genes, then 4 genes ......... then 21999 genes, then 22000 genes, each gene with a unique function. This process would involve the creation of new genes with new functions.

Show me an example when a unique beneficial gene is added to the genome succesfully in nature.