RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,03:49   

Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 09 2011,01:47)
The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

The problem is that speciation (they don't deny speciation) is the means by which evolution occurs. It is therfore important to prove that novel genetic material is added at a somewhat constant rate at the base of speciation so as to create biodiversity.

Further it seems that loss of genetic material is more common than gain of genetic material. Which would lead in the long run to a depletion of genetic material.

To disprove their idea we would need:

1) to find at least a few clear examples of speciation that is due to creation of novel genetic material (which cannot be attributeded to genes already present which were turned on)
2) Have a specific study which shows that novel genetic material is constantly being added and selected by natural selection.
3) Have a study that shows that loss of FCT (in behe's terms) cannot swamp out gain of FCT cases.

Are these valid questions or am I missing the point.

Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]